Roe vs Wade benefits everybody

No, I would vigorously oppose such a measure, as would every thinking person.
Based on what?
You've already shown that you think it's acceptable to murder unborn children, solely because they aren't people yet.

You've further stated that you don't believe that there's a final arbiter of reality.

So, what basis would you have to justify your opinion of this?

Don't be so unrealistic.
I'm just following your logic.
If you're going to say that I'm being unrealistic, perhaps your ideas are unrealistic.

Think of actual issues, the death penalty, euthanasia, abortion, same sex marriage, fox hunting.

Fox hunting?
We don't hunt foxes here in the west. But if you actually want to slaughter foxes, you go right ahead. Out west we hunt deer, bear, wolves, rabbits, pheasant, chukar, quail, fish of various kinds.

I have spent decades thinking about the rest of these items.
The death penalty is actually a biblically defined issue.

Gen 9:5-6 WEB 5 I will surely require accounting for your life’s blood. At the hand of every animal I will require it. At the hand of man, even at the hand of every man’s brother, I will require the life of man. 6 Whoever sheds man’s blood, his blood will be shed by man, for God made man in his own image.

It seems pretty clear that God placed it squarely in our hands.

The willful and deliberate assassination of people based on the premise that their pain defines their value as a human being, or a quality of life issue....

Abortion, as the willful and deliberate assassination of the unborn, simply because they are inconvenient to the parents.

Marriage too was defined by God as a lifetime commitment between a man and a woman.

You can indeed call it whatever you want, but it's not a marriage.
For a people who want to be known for living their own lives on their own terms, I find it ironically amusing that they would choose to define their lives together as something so anachronistic as a biblically defined definition.
That's like saying that the sun is actually the moon.





Whether or not these things are legal or not, decides whether you can do them or not.
Ok. So if a day like the purge was legalized, you'd accept it and fight for the right to engage in mass murder.

Whether the legal situation is also the moral one, depends on the individual.
Yep. So, murdering Jews and enslaving blacks was legal in their respective periods of history and countries.
And as such, you've already demonstrated that just as long as it's legal, you're ready to fight tooth and nail for the right of practitioners to engage in murder and slavery.

Legality doesn't determine morality.
Which is exactly what I'd previously stated.


It proscribes or allows action. It doesn't proscribe thoughts.
Well, I'm asking yours.
And what basis do you have for your beliefs about them.
There are a few laws in my country which I disagree with and think are morally wrong, but not so seriously that I am moved to protest or attempt to subvert such laws.
Such as?

Should capital punishment return or abortion be proscribed, that would probably change.
We still have capital punishment here in the United states. Some states engage and others don't.

With the overturning of roe v wade, abortion returned to the individual states for determination.
I find it hilarious that the pro-deliberate/willful assassination of non-people clans are all up in arms that the federal government no longer has a right to define what is allowed.
You'd think they'd be ecstatic about it being returned to the individual states.


I am perhaps lucky that I agree with the position taken by the law on most issues.
So, this just tells me that you are in agreement with slavery, in its day; you are in agreement with the nazis and their right to murder Jews, LGBTQ, gypsies, and disabled persons who aren't actually people, in its day.
And if the Purge was actually legalized, you'd support it too.

That doesn't mean that my position is determined by the law.
Sounds like you're confused about what you actually believe.

Quite the reverse. It actually indicates that I'm fairly average in my moral position, and the laws I live under reflect the average views of the citizens who live here.
Sounds like you flow with the majority.

I'm reminded of the lemmings over the cliff adage from the 60's.

As a child did you beg your parents to let you do stupid things because all your friends did them?
 

Attachments

  • FB_IMG_1649527618339.jpg
    FB_IMG_1649527618339.jpg
    142.9 KB · Views: 1
Based on what?
You've already shown that you think it's acceptable to murder unborn children, solely because they aren't people yet.

You've further stated that you don't believe that there's a final arbiter of reality.

So, what basis would you have to justify your opinion of this?


I'm just following your logic.
If you're going to say that I'm being unrealistic, perhaps your ideas are unrealistic.



Fox hunting?
We don't hunt foxes here in the west. But if you actually want to slaughter foxes, you go right ahead. Out west we hunt deer, bear, wolves, rabbits, pheasant, chukar, quail, fish of various kinds.

I have spent decades thinking about the rest of these items.
The death penalty is actually a biblically defined issue.

Gen 9:5-6 WEB 5 I will surely require accounting for your life’s blood. At the hand of every animal I will require it. At the hand of man, even at the hand of every man’s brother, I will require the life of man. 6 Whoever sheds man’s blood, his blood will be shed by man, for God made man in his own image.

It seems pretty clear that God placed it squarely in our hands.

The willful and deliberate assassination of people based on the premise that their pain defines their value as a human being, or a quality of life issue....

Abortion, as the willful and deliberate assassination of the unborn, simply because they are inconvenient to the parents.

Marriage too was defined by God as a lifetime commitment between a man and a woman.

You can indeed call it whatever you want, but it's not a marriage.
For a people who want to be known for living their own lives on their own terms, I find it ironically amusing that they would choose to define their lives together as something so anachronistic as a biblically defined definition.
That's like saying that the sun is actually the moon.






Ok. So if a day like the purge was legalized, you'd accept it and fight for the right to engage in mass murder.


Yep. So, murdering Jews and enslaving blacks was legal in their respective periods of history and countries.
And as such, you've already demonstrated that just as long as it's legal, you're ready to fight tooth and nail for the right of practitioners to engage in murder and slavery.


Which is exactly what I'd previously stated.



Well, I'm asking yours.
And what basis do you have for your beliefs about them.

Such as?


We still have capital punishment here in the United states. Some states engage and others don't.

With the overturning of roe v wade, abortion returned to the individual states for determination.
I find it hilarious that the pro-deliberate/willful assassination of non-people clans are all up in arms that the federal government no longer has a right to define what is allowed.
You'd think they'd be ecstatic about it being returned to the individual states.



So, this just tells me that you are in agreement with slavery, in its day; you are in agreement with the nazis and their right to murder Jews, LGBTQ, gypsies, and disabled persons who aren't actually people, in its day.
And if the Purge was actually legalized, you'd support it too.


Sounds like you're confused about what you actually believe.


Sounds like you flow with the majority.

I'm reminded of the lemmings over the cliff adage from the 60's.

As a child did you beg your parents to let you do stupid things because all your friends did them?
I'm not sure whether you are genuinely bewildered or whether you have to work hard to be so obtuse.

I have said several times what my personal moral standard is based upon. It is the common genetic heritage we all share, plus my upbringing plus my life experiences. I have never stated that I agree with something because it is legal. That's you lying, sorry misrepresenting, sorry, being confused about my position. There's nothing contradictory or confused about what I have actually posted. The contradiction and confusion comes from your lies, sorry misrepresentations, sorry honest misunderstanding of what I have written.

For a bunch of people that claim the existence of a moral high ground, and that they stand upon it, you and your mates have a surprising lack of honesty and integrity.

I disagree with the current UK laws on assisted dying, on dangerous dogs and on immigration.

The majority flow with the majority. That's what the majority is. There's nothing smart about being an oddball. I'm just average. There's probably not a single person who thinks exactly as I do about every issue, but on average, I'm average. To avoid any further "confused misunderstanding", that doesn't mean that I choose to think what others think in order to fit in. I happen to think what a lot of other people think because what we think makes more sense than the kooky theories of oddballs. Most people agree, like me, that slavery and mass murder is bad, that capital punishment is uncivilised, that abortion is justifiable in many cases and that same sex relationships are as valid and as normal as heterosexual relationships. I don't care if you disagree. I don't even care if the majority disagree. These are issues that I care about and I will fight for the legal status that currently prevails on them in my country. I don't care because of that legal status, but because in my personal moral standard, the current legal status is acceptable to me. That a majority of people agree with me, means that I probably won't have to fight that hard to preserve things, but I can keep my hand in by debating with kooky oddballs on the internet as a pastime.
 
No, I would vigorously oppose such a measure, as would every thinking person. Don't be so unrealistic. Think of actual issues, the death penalty, euthanasia, abortion, same sex marriage, fox hunting. Whether or not these things are legal or not, decides whether you can do them or not. Whether the legal situation is also the moral one, depends on the individual. Legality doesn't determine morality. It proscribes or allows action. It doesn't proscribe thoughts. There are a few laws in my country which I disagree with and think are morally wrong, but not so seriously that I am moved to protest or attempt to subvert such laws. Should capital punishment return or abortion be proscribed, that would probably change. I am perhaps lucky that I agree with the position taken by the law on most issues. That doesn't mean that my position is determined by the law. Quite the reverse. It actually indicates that I'm fairly average in my moral position, and the laws I live under reflect the average views of the citizens who live here.
What do you suppose laws are based on?
 
What do you suppose laws are based on?
Idealistically, on the moral views and promises made by politicians . More cynically, on what politicians think will get them elected. In practice, what makes practical and financial sense in a given situation.
 
I'm not sure whether you are genuinely bewildered or whether you have to work hard to be so obtuse.
I'm trying to find out if you actually understand the implications of your previously stated beliefs.

I have said several times what my personal moral standard is based upon. It is the common genetic heritage we all share, plus my upbringing plus my life experiences.
Well, considering that you have explicitly stated you don't actually believe that there is a final authority, or God, and his law, I'm curious if you actually grasp what you're saying here.

The bible is quite clear about this issue.

Rom 2:14-16 WEB 14 (for when Gentiles who don’t have the law do by nature the things of the law, these, not having the law, are a law to themselves, 15 in that they show the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience testifying with them, and their thoughts among themselves accusing or else excusing them) 16 in the day when God will judge the secrets of men, according to my Good News, by Jesus Christ.

Jer 31:33 WEB “But this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days,” says Yahweh: “I will put my law in their inward parts, and I will write it in their heart. I will be their God, and they shall be my people.

So, that "genetics" you mention...... YHVH says that his final authority is written in your heart. It's inscribed in the heart of every single human being on earth, past, present and future.



I have never stated that I agree with something because it is legal. That's you lying, sorry misrepresenting, sorry, being confused about my position.
Nope. It's me making sure that I understand, and that you grasp the implications of your previously established descriptions.

You may indeed think that unborn children are not people. God says otherwise.

I agree that it seems ambiguous, vague, and unclear.

I provided you with several different passages from the bible that deal with this question of ambiguity and lack of concise clarity.


There's nothing contradictory or confused about what I have actually posted.
I think you simply don't comprehend the implications of your explicitly stated beliefs.
I'd rather believe that than the other perspective.

The contradiction and confusion comes from your lies, sorry misrepresentations, sorry honest misunderstanding of what I have written.
Nope. I'm not contradictory or confused at all.
I prefer to believe that you simply don't grasp the implications of your explicitly stated beliefs.


For a bunch of people that claim the existence of a moral high ground, and that they stand upon it, you and your mates have a surprising lack of honesty and integrity.
That would indeed make it easier for you to justify yourself.
Perhaps the problem here isn't that we're not being honest, nor are we lacking integrity.

But, that in our pointing out the obvious points of your expressly stated beliefs, you don't like it, and need to find a way to excuse yourself, just as stated in Romans 2.

Rom 2:14-16 WEB 14 (for when Gentiles who don’t have the law do by nature the things of the law, these, not having the law, are a law to themselves, 15 in that they show the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience testifying with them, and their thoughts among themselves accusing or else excusing them) 16 in the day when God will judge the secrets of men, according to my Good News, by Jesus Christ.


Don't worry though. We're not the ones to whom you will be answering.

We're all going to answer to the same Person.

His name is Jesus.

I disagree with the current UK laws on assisted dying, on dangerous dogs and on immigration.
Ok. I haven't heard anything about dangerous dogs from Britain.
Well, anything really.
I'm an American. I focus on American laws.
And I am a citizen of heaven, so I also focus on heaven's laws.

The majority flow with the majority. That's what the majority is. There's nothing smart about being an oddball. I'm just average.
That's an affirmation that you have no problem whatsoever with supporting laws that support moral crimes.

There's probably not a single person who thinks exactly as I do about every issue, but on average, I'm average. To avoid any further "confused misunderstanding", that doesn't mean that I choose to think what others think in order to fit in.
Silence is consent.
To be silent is to agree with the status quo.
I get the oddball stuff.
I've learned over the past 60+ years of my life that my very existence demonstrates that no matter how hard I've tried to fit in, and go with the flow, I invariably piss people off. Some enough that they've done verbal violence against me. Sometimes I've deserved it, others, not.

Being in Britain, you should have had an education that included the Nuremberg tribunal and the consequences for not speaking out against violence against humanity. Whether on a large scale or individually.

If not, or if you have forgotten, I'd encourage you to read up. It'll matter.


I happen to think what a lot of other people think because what we think makes more sense than the kooky theories of oddballs. Most people agree, like me, that slavery and mass murder is bad, that capital punishment is uncivilised, that abortion is justifiable in many cases and that same sex relationships are as valid and as normal as heterosexual relationships. I don't care if you disagree. I don't even care if the majority disagree. These are issues that I care about and I will fight for the legal status that currently prevails on them in my country. I don't care because of that legal status, but because in my personal moral standard, the current legal status is acceptable to me. That a majority of people agree with me, means that I probably won't have to fight that hard to preserve things, but I can keep my hand in by debating with kooky oddballs on the internet as a pastime.


Here in the states, we have a rather interesting adage about such things.

It's about a frog being placed in a pot of water and the heat being slowly increased until the pot reaches boiling point.

If a frog is placed in a pot of room temperature water, and the heat is slowly increased until it boils, he won't actually experience the damage until it's too late and it dies.

But if its placed in the pot after the water has become hot, it'll do whatever it takes to escape the water.

Human civilization is experiencing the increasing temperature of the pot of water. Those who have been in the water for a long time, think things are hunky dory, and have no real problem. Upon occasion, they might say- gee, something seems wrong, or this is wrong, but never actually say anything, for fear of being the oddball or troublemaker.
Some troublemakers have indeed been killed for standing up to the evil.

Jesus warned us that could happen.

But remaining silent.... it's a guarantee that evil wins.

As Edmund Burke said--

The only thing required for evil to win is that good men remain quiet.

As I recall, Winston Churchill had something to say about this issue too.

Something to the effect of-- if you make people around you uncomfortable, or angry, that means that you stood up for something that matters.
 
Idealistically, on the moral views and promises made by politicians . More cynically, on what politicians think will get them elected. In practice, what makes practical and financial sense in a given situation.
So a sort of dictatorship. But are their moral views right, are yours, are the majority ones?
 
I'm trying to find out if you actually understand the implications of your previously stated beliefs.


Well, considering that you have explicitly stated you don't actually believe that there is a final authority, or God, and his law, I'm curious if you actually grasp what you're saying here.

The bible is quite clear about this issue.

Rom 2:14-16 WEB 14 (for when Gentiles who don’t have the law do by nature the things of the law, these, not having the law, are a law to themselves, 15 in that they show the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience testifying with them, and their thoughts among themselves accusing or else excusing them) 16 in the day when God will judge the secrets of men, according to my Good News, by Jesus Christ.

Jer 31:33 WEB “But this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days,” says Yahweh: “I will put my law in their inward parts, and I will write it in their heart. I will be their God, and they shall be my people.

So, that "genetics" you mention...... YHVH says that his final authority is written in your heart. It's inscribed in the heart of every single human being on earth, past, present and future.




Nope. It's me making sure that I understand, and that you grasp the implications of your previously established descriptions.

You may indeed think that unborn children are not people. God says otherwise.

I agree that it seems ambiguous, vague, and unclear.

I provided you with several different passages from the bible that deal with this question of ambiguity and lack of concise clarity.



I think you simply don't comprehend the implications of your explicitly stated beliefs.
I'd rather believe that than the other perspective.


Nope. I'm not contradictory or confused at all.
I prefer to believe that you simply don't grasp the implications of your explicitly stated beliefs.



That would indeed make it easier for you to justify yourself.
Perhaps the problem here isn't that we're not being honest, nor are we lacking integrity.

But, that in our pointing out the obvious points of your expressly stated beliefs, you don't like it, and need to find a way to excuse yourself, just as stated in Romans 2.

Rom 2:14-16 WEB 14 (for when Gentiles who don’t have the law do by nature the things of the law, these, not having the law, are a law to themselves, 15 in that they show the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience testifying with them, and their thoughts among themselves accusing or else excusing them) 16 in the day when God will judge the secrets of men, according to my Good News, by Jesus Christ.


Don't worry though. We're not the ones to whom you will be answering.

We're all going to answer to the same Person.

His name is Jesus.


Ok. I haven't heard anything about dangerous dogs from Britain.
Well, anything really.
I'm an American. I focus on American laws.
And I am a citizen of heaven, so I also focus on heaven's laws.


That's an affirmation that you have no problem whatsoever with supporting laws that support moral crimes.


Silence is consent.
To be silent is to agree with the status quo.
I get the oddball stuff.
I've learned over the past 60+ years of my life that my very existence demonstrates that no matter how hard I've tried to fit in, and go with the flow, I invariably piss people off. Some enough that they've done verbal violence against me. Sometimes I've deserved it, others, not.

Being in Britain, you should have had an education that included the Nuremberg tribunal and the consequences for not speaking out against violence against humanity. Whether on a large scale or individually.

If not, or if you have forgotten, I'd encourage you to read up. It'll matter.





Here in the states, we have a rather interesting adage about such things.

It's about a frog being placed in a pot of water and the heat being slowly increased until the pot reaches boiling point.

If a frog is placed in a pot of room temperature water, and the heat is slowly increased until it boils, he won't actually experience the damage until it's too late and it dies.

But if its placed in the pot after the water has become hot, it'll do whatever it takes to escape the water.

Human civilization is experiencing the increasing temperature of the pot of water. Those who have been in the water for a long time, think things are hunky dory, and have no real problem. Upon occasion, they might say- gee, something seems wrong, or this is wrong, but never actually say anything, for fear of being the oddball or troublemaker.
Some troublemakers have indeed been killed for standing up to the evil.

Jesus warned us that could happen.

But remaining silent.... it's a guarantee that evil wins.

As Edmund Burke said--

The only thing required for evil to win is that good men remain quiet.

As I recall, Winston Churchill had something to say about this issue too.

Something to the effect of-- if you make people around you uncomfortable, or angry, that means that you stood up for something that matters.
You say two things in your post, neither of which is relevant. Firstly you castigate me and urge me to speak up against moral wrongs rather than going along with the majority. I have said explicitly that I would do. The reason I don't at the moment is because morally, I agree with most people, as things stand. I have nothing to stand against. There's no holocaust to protest about. No legal slavery. Racism and homophobia are dealt with in a way I approve of.

Secondly, you make great play of Bible quotes. I don't care. I don't run my life according to what the Bible says any more than I run my life according to what Noddy meets Bigears says. The Bible is a large rambling collection of aphorisms that can be used to support anything. That's why it's popular. I have even used Bible quotes myself, in a tongue in cheek way. Using the Bible to support a weak and morally dubious position, as you do here, doesn't strengthen your case, it just further weakens the Bible.
 
You say two things in your post, neither of which is relevant. Firstly you castigate me and urge me to speak up against moral wrongs rather than going along with the majority. I have said explicitly that I would do. The reason I don't at the moment is because morally, I agree with most people, as things stand. I have nothing to stand against. There's no holocaust to protest about. No legal slavery. Racism and homophobia are dealt with in a way I approve of.

Secondly, you make great play of Bible quotes. I don't care. I don't run my life according to what the Bible says any more than I run my life according to what Noddy meets Bigears says. The Bible is a large rambling collection of aphorisms that can be used to support anything. That's why it's popular. I have even used Bible quotes myself, in a tongue in cheek way. Using the Bible to support a weak and morally dubious position, as you do here, doesn't strengthen your case, it just further weakens the Bible.
Depends what you mean by homophobia when lesbians are called terfs and the police threaten to put gay people on their backside when they dont agree with their virtue signaling
 
Depends what you mean by homophobia when lesbians are called terfs and the police threaten to put gay people on their backside when they dont agree with their virtue signaling
No, it doesn't depend on any such thing. Try to read the post as a whole. The poster is criticising me for not speaking out against moral wrongs. Homophobia, as defined in any dictionary, is a moral wrong in my opinion. It is also dealt with in law in the UK in a way I largely agree with. Therefore I don't speak out against the way it is dealt with. Whether you agree with it or not is of no consequence to my point. The question wasn't put to you.
 
No, it doesn't depend on any such thing. Try to read the post as a whole. The poster is criticising me for not speaking out against moral wrongs. Homophobia, as defined in any dictionary, is a moral wrong in my opinion. It is also dealt with in law in the UK in a way I largely agree with. Therefore I don't speak out against the way it is dealt with. Whether you agree with it or not is of no consequence to my point. The question wasn't put to you.
Then it depends on what you mean by homophobia is gays and lesbians are ostracised and threatened.according to the dictionary definition that is homophobia.
 
Then it depends on what you mean by homophobia is gays and lesbians are ostracised and threatened.according to the dictionary definition that is homophobia.
No. As stated. It doesn't depend on this at all. We know how difficult it is for you to grasp that there are other topics of conversation apart from your personal obsession with gay and transgender issues. Try to raise your gaze above other people's navel.
 
No. As stated. It doesn't depend on this at all. We know how difficult it is for you to grasp that there are other topics of conversation apart from your personal obsession with gay and transgender issues. Try to raise your gaze above other people's navel.
Ok thats just baseless waffle again. YOU mentioned homophobia in YOUR post that I responded to, so your obsession.
Of course it depends on what we mean by homophobia if we cant agree on what homophobia is...where gays and lesbians get ostracised and threatened I would say that was homophobia by definition, you are saying its not? Perhaps you think thats transphobia, right?
 
Ok thats just baseless waffle again. YOU mentioned homophobia in YOUR post that I responded to, so your obsession.
Of course it depends on what we mean by homophobia if we cant agree on what homophobia is...where gays and lesbians get ostracised and threatened I would say that was homophobia by definition, you are saying its not? Perhaps you think thats transphobia, right?
What you think homophobia is, is not relevant. I mentioned it as one of a number of moral issues to which I respond. You are responding to a dog whistle which isn't directed at you at all. Sure there is a discussion to be had about homophobia, transphobia and related issues. But not here as part of a completely different discussion about morality in general and abortion in particular.
 
What you think homophobia is, is not relevant. I mentioned it as one of a number of moral issues to which I respond. You are responding to a dog whistle which isn't directed at you at all. Sure there is a discussion to be had about homophobia, transphobia and related issues. But not here as part of a completely different discussion about morality in general and abortion in particular.
Ok so what you think homophobia is, is not relevant, so you should not have posted about it. If its one of the issues it could be relevant.
Firstly in reponse to whether there are morals you refer to the majority and then you say you speak out against morals you think are wrong. How can morals be wrong where morals are decided by the majority?
 
Ok so what you think homophobia is, is not relevant, so you should not have posted about it. If its one of the issues it could be relevant.
Firstly in reponse to whether there are morals you refer to the majority and then you say you speak out against morals you think are wrong. How can morals be wrong where morals are decided by the majority?
The only people who say that morals are decided by the majority are illiterate morons who cannot understand what I have written, and cannot be bothered to read properly. Morals are always personal. They are never decided by a majority, or indeed by anyone else. They are an individual judgement.
 
The only people who say that morals are decided by the majority are illiterate morons who cannot understand what I have written, and cannot be bothered to read properly. Morals are always personal. They are never decided by a majority, or indeed by anyone else. They are an individual judgement.
In your opinion.
It seems you are having trouble communicating with a number of us here.
 
In your opinion.
It seems you are having trouble communicating with a number of us here.
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.
 
You say two things in your post, neither of which is relevant. Firstly you castigate me and urge me to speak up against moral wrongs rather than going along with the majority. I have said explicitly that I would do. The reason I don't at the moment is because morally, I agree with most people, as things stand. I have nothing to stand against. There's no holocaust to protest about. No legal slavery. Racism and homophobia are dealt with in a way I approve of.
So, you don't actually think that 120 to 150 million babies in a 3 year period are any kind of holocaust.
Then you have just demonstrated that you would have agreed with Hitler's tactics.

This isn't about castigating your failures.
It's about pointing out to you the incongruity of your beliefs.
On the one hand you have no problem with other people committing crimes against humanity and would remain silent to the cries of the voiceless, but then you claim that you would oppose the historical crimes against humanity.

My point is that you are ignoring the correlation between them.

What you do is your choice. But don't think for a moment that you are innocent of the blood of people who have being slaughtered around the world.

And don't think I find myself innocent either. The entire human race is guilty for the blood we've ignored.


Secondly, you make great play of Bible quotes. I don't care.
Yep. You've repeatedly stated that. I haven't forgotten.

I don't run my life according to what the Bible says any more than I run my life according to what Noddy meets Bigears says.
I remember that too. I haven't forgotten.

The Bible is a large rambling collection of aphorisms that can be used to support anything.
That is your opinion.
The people of antebellum southern states in America, and German citizens of nazi Germany thought the same.
It was an interesting book, and the things we like, we'll focus on and ignore the rest.
You're not alone.


That's why it's popular. I have even used Bible quotes myself, in a tongue in cheek way. Using the Bible to support a weak and morally dubious position, as you do here, doesn't strengthen your case, it just further weakens the Bible.
Which is pretty much what the German pastors said before the government came after them.
Same with antebellum slave owners.

Murder is still murder.
Regardless of what the civil laws state.

Slavery was legal in antebellum America.
Killing Jews, LGBTQ, disabled and gypsies alike was legal in nazi Germany.

Now we may have the distance from the past to comfortably pat ourselves on the back and claim- yeah. We'd never do that, but you think is a legal matter, best left to politicians and lawmakers.... it's murder.

Slaves, and the others in nazi Germany were not viewed as people either.
Any more than native American people were. The stories are rampant about savages.

The devaluing of human beings as being less than human or not people...
It's a longstanding issue having basis in antiquity.

So, you continue on as you are.

You'll find out soon enough.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BMS
So, you don't actually think that 120 to 150 million babies in a 3 year period are any kind of holocaust.
Then you have just demonstrated that you would have agreed with Hitler's tactics.

This isn't about castigating your failures.
It's about pointing out to you the incongruity of your beliefs.
On the one hand you have no problem with other people committing crimes against humanity and would remain silent to the cries of the voiceless, but then you claim that you would oppose the historical crimes against humanity.

My point is that you are ignoring the correlation between them.

What you do is your choice. But don't think for a moment that you are innocent of the blood of people who have being slaughtered around the world.

And don't think I find myself innocent either. The entire human race is guilty for the blood we've ignored.



Yep. You've repeatedly stated that. I haven't forgotten.


I remember that too. I haven't forgotten.


That is your opinion.
The people of antebellum southern states in America, and German citizens of nazi Germany thought the same.
It was an interesting book, and the things we like, we'll focus on and ignore the rest.
You're not alone.



Which is pretty much what the German pastors said before the government came after them.
Same with antebellum slave owners.

Murder is still murder.
Regardless of what the civil laws state.

Slavery was legal in antebellum America.
Killing Jews, LGBTQ, disabled and gypsies alike was legal in nazi Germany.

Now we may have the distance from the past to comfortably pat ourselves on the back and claim- yeah. We'd never do that, but you think is a legal matter, best left to politicians and lawmakers.... it's murder.

Slaves, and the others in nazi Germany were not viewed as people either.
Any more than native American people were. The stories are rampant about savages.

The devaluing of human beings as being less than human or not people...
It's a longstanding issue having basis in antiquity.

So, you continue on as you are.

You'll find out soon enough.
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.
 
Back
Top