Text of the tweet:
And you wonder why the rest of the world hates the US. People like you are the scum of the earth. I hope you're the next victim
(Please leave any comments at Triablogue.)
Tuesday, December 18, 2012
A courteous advocate of gun control
Text of the tweet:
And you wonder why the rest of the world hates the US. People like you are the scum of the earth. I hope you're the next victim
(Please leave any comments at Triablogue.)
Friday, December 07, 2012
Blogology
A student at the local university wrote in to the Abolish Human Abortion page, requesting an interview with one of the agitators-in-residence.
I volunteered, as a I certainly qualify as an agitator.
The questions and their answers allowed me to delve into some of the reasons I blog the way I do and live the way I do. Perhaps they will interest you too.
Would you consider yourself to be pro-life or pro-choice?
I am an abolitionist of human abortion, so entirely pro-life.
What factors do you attribute to presenting a strong argument for your point of view?
Reasoned analysis and logical coherency. Also, since the question of abortion is fundamentally a moral question, the issue of authority must be dealt with fundamentally, lest one commit the naturalistic fallacy.
Which of these would you say is the most important?
Probably the question of authority. It's most important because it's so little understood.
I volunteered, as a I certainly qualify as an agitator.
The questions and their answers allowed me to delve into some of the reasons I blog the way I do and live the way I do. Perhaps they will interest you too.
Would you consider yourself to be pro-life or pro-choice?
I am an abolitionist of human abortion, so entirely pro-life.
What factors do you attribute to presenting a strong argument for your point of view?
Reasoned analysis and logical coherency. Also, since the question of abortion is fundamentally a moral question, the issue of authority must be dealt with fundamentally, lest one commit the naturalistic fallacy.
Which of these would you say is the most important?
Probably the question of authority. It's most important because it's so little understood.
Communication competence is defined as the balance of appropriateness and effectiveness. For example, one would want to be more appropriate than effective when explaining a complex problem in a formal setting. Whereas, one would want to be more effective than appropriate when attempting to persuade an opposing party to agree with your perspective. When debating a controversial issue, like abortion, describe how you manage these two variables in order to make a strong argument.
There is one answer for face-to-face scenarios and another for Internet-based interactions.
Face-to-face: I make an effort to judge the initial parameters of the encounter, the context, the way the person approached me or the trigger that brought me to approaching them. For example, discussing this question at work during “work time” as an aside is different from discussing it at work during break is different from “on the street” encounters is different from family. And of course, as the situation develops and body language, tone of voice, volume of voice, level of interruption, etc, proceed, I must adapt. Most times, since most people are incapable of maintaining calm during these types of debates, I must move toward less effectiveness and more appropriateness, in an effort to continue the interaction and lessen the risk of the interlocutor(s) simply losing their temper or disengaging altogether.
In some cases I have moved toward more effectiveness/stridency in these encounters. That sort of thing is definitely the minority of occurrences and usually happens because I have detected a particularly pernicious hypocrisy or, in at least one case, where a promising discussion was developing with Person X but then Person Y intervened out of nowhere and seemingly turned Person X's demeanor totally against me, such that X became unwilling to consider my position seriously.
Internet-based interactions are usually very different because one does not have the benefit of access to body language, tone of voice, etc. Further, people that one meets on the street, for example, are not necessarily particularly interested in discussing the issue or do not necessarily have a great deal of confidence in their abilities to discuss it. If someone seeks out my blog or the Abolish Human Abortion page, however, and of their own free will open a dialogue by posting a comment, it is a safe assumption that they are willing to discuss the issue. This doesn't guarantee they are OK with a reply once it is given or that they do indeed have any knowledge, as sometimes people merely reply with an emotional drive-by comment, but the chances are greater.
Another relevant consideration: what is said on the Internet is in most cases semi-permanent, whereas words spoken face-to-face are transient.
A final consideration: Someone like an AHA admin or a Christian “godblogger” (of which I am both) has seen the same challenges repeated dozens of times and maintaining patience is challenging with the same things over and over, so that contributes to a more strident tone of writing, more clipped replies, less benefit of the doubt given to the challenger.
Tuesday, November 27, 2012
0bamaphone, redux
ERV, often unintentionally funny, does it again...
So, since you and I are now responsible for paying for this unmarried student's birth control pill habit, she now has the wherewithal to get herself a top-of-the-line phone (only $300!??!? Tell me more about this fantastic deal!!!) with a data plan.
Meanwhile, my employer dropped the family healthcare plan that I favored and reduced my options to precisely two, my commute is now at least twice as expensive as it was four years ago, and I have a $20 TV I got from Craigslist, no cable TV, and the barebones cell phone family plan. And when I want condoms, I buy them myself.
But hey, ERV, glad I could help you out with that. Enjoy.
What I mean is, my last phone was a Blackberry Pearl. Yeah. I got it 2008-ish, I think. Ive never had a smartphone, because I couldnt afford it. The Blackberry worked, my cell bill is like $20 added on as a family line to my parents bill. Compare that to the the cost of the new smartphones, plus somewhere up to $100 a month for a data plan? No thank you.(Emphasis added.)
But my Blackberry is finally dying (NOOOO!), there are lots of alternative options to traditional overpriced phone plans (T-mobile $30, Straight Talk $45), thanks to Obamacare Im not paying for birth control every month now, and the Nexus 4 was coming out. A high-end phone at a relatively low price ($299 vs its $550 ATT Optimus G counterpart), that gets upgrades straight from Google.
So I got one.
So, since you and I are now responsible for paying for this unmarried student's birth control pill habit, she now has the wherewithal to get herself a top-of-the-line phone (only $300!??!? Tell me more about this fantastic deal!!!) with a data plan.
Meanwhile, my employer dropped the family healthcare plan that I favored and reduced my options to precisely two, my commute is now at least twice as expensive as it was four years ago, and I have a $20 TV I got from Craigslist, no cable TV, and the barebones cell phone family plan. And when I want condoms, I buy them myself.
But hey, ERV, glad I could help you out with that. Enjoy.
Assertionism lives!
You say "atrocities", but you need to give us a good reason to think you have any moral knowledge of any kind.
As it happens, what God commands is good by definition. They weren't atrocities. They were judgment.
conflicting with everything I had learned of Jesus' words
That's because you only knew SOME of His words.
plus the feelings in my heart about it(where supposedly the Law was written)
The feelings in your heart are merely feelings. What makes you think they hold any authority or bearing on what is morally true?
And as far as the law being written on your heart, you've taken that saying out of context. Romans 2:12-15 is where that is discussed, and it is communicating that the law is written on hearts such that we know we have done wrong and feel guilt. It is supposed to lead us to seek for God and His Savior, and yet it deepens our guilt that we don't seek Him. Thus the law being written on our hearts and the fact that we show it is written there by feeling and expressing guilt and making up false religion to deal with that guilt is actually more evidence of our wickedness.
the first steps down the path to losing my faith in the first place.
You had at best a woefully incomplete faith, so no big loss there.
You are responsible for repenting of ALL of your sin and placing ALL of your trust in Jesus. What we've seen so far here demonstrates that your faith is in yourself and your own baseless moral judgments. You'd rather gripe at God than throw yourself at His feet for mercy and forgiveness.
Please, repent.
How you can distinguish between when god is telling you to follow a commandment like Do Not Kill and when he wants you to do just the opposite such as in the example listed above when he provides no rationale behind the commands is beyond me
Then just ask.
It's not "Do not kill"; it's "do not murder". Murder = unjustified and intentional taking of human life.
But when God tells you to exercise HIs judgment on people, that's not murder. It's actually a good thing.
It doesn't matter whether you like it or not. Just who are you to talk back to your Creator? And how do you know you're right in your moral intuitions, again?
especially since he seemed to lose the ability to communicate with real words sometime around the time that the Word became flesh, but I'll move on.
The Bible is really, really long. That's a pretty lengthy communication, and the Bible contains "real words", in case you've forgotten.
Words like "Jesus", "sin", "the", "went", "money", "life", "death", "God"... those are real. What are you talking about?
I find it interesting that you take (Lk 18:19) and give me half of it, something you were accusing evilbible.com of doing earlier.
Untrue. You're just missing what I'm communicating b/c you have a shallow understanding of the text.
Jesus didn't say He's not good. He's inviting the rich young ruler to consider well his words about Jesus. If no one is good but God...and Jesus is good...Jesus is God.
As it happens, Jesus *IS INDEED* God, so of course He's good. He wants the r.y.r. to come to his own conclusion.
I'll give you that the Romans passage does seem to give some support of it, though it only specifically says that those from Adam to Moses(when the Law was formed) were killed by sin that they didn't commit.
1) Sort of. They inherited death b/c the sin of Adam was IMPUTED to them (much like the righteousness of Jesus is IMPUTED to the repentant).
2) The passage doesn't say why they were "killed". It says it was sufficient to condemn each of us to death. We also ratify that imputation of sin by our own sin, which we commit every day.
The fact that you say God did the killing and that he used men as tools does not in any way remove the bloody swords from their hands
Shrug. I wasn't trying to remove bloody swords from their hands. What is your meaning?
You don't claim that Adam and Eve were justified for their sin just because they were Satan's tools
Huh? They weren't Satan's tools. They chose to listen to Satan and not God. They chose to sin, all by themselves.
how can you claim that the Israelites were justified in their killing because they were god's tools?
Despite the bad premise to your question, let me help you understand.
They were commanded, straight up, by God to do those killings. It would have been evil to refuse to kill whom He had commanded they kill. Of course they had the chance to choose not to do it, and if they had, they would have been punished somehow.
They were justified in doing it b/c whatever God says is good by definition. He said "kill those people", and that made the action a good thing.
You won't like it, but again, that doesn't matter. You're not the Pope of Morality. You don't have authority to judge God or anyone else. You don't know whether your moral intuitions are correct. You're all by yourself. You have nothing.
Submit your likes and preferences to God, because what God says is actually, truly good.
Of course one can learn things that are not in the Bible. You misunderstand my meaning.
since my method is based on trying to understand what constitutes as harm,
No no no, that's not what I asked you.
I asked you this: How do you know minimising harm is correct?
That's not the same as "what constitutes harm?" Not even close.
you can see how things can affect a larger sample of humanity.
This is true. So what? Effects can be good or bad.
but certainly a bad thing from the viewpoint of someone who looks at visible facts)
Don't ASSERT it. SHOW it. PROVE it. From your worldview.
the family and friends of the victim have to deal with the grief caused by this act, the hole in their life where this person was
Don't ASSERT that grief is bad. SHOW it. PROVE it. From your worldview.
the general worsening of their lives caused by this person not being around
Now you're begging the question. You need to SHOW that their lives are worse. How do you know what is better/worse and good/bad?
A rapist causes emotional pain to the victim often times for the rest of their life
Yes, of course, and if Jesus is Lord, rape is one of the most evil things possible.
But on YOUR worldview, I want you to SHOW rape is evil. Don't ASSERT it. SHOW it. PROVE it.
it's very easy to extrapolate the damage it could cause to society as a whole.
Don't ASSERT that you know what damage is, or that damage is bad. SHOW it. PROVE it.
Using the word "effective" begs the question in two ways.
1) Assumes that you know toward which goal we SHOULD be moving.
2) Assumes that you know that being effective is good.
But I want you not to ASSERT these things, but rather to SHOW, to PROVE, them.
If size and strength were the most beneficial, why aren't elephants the primary beings on earth?
So shallow!
1) Using the word "beneficial" begs the question in two ways.
a. Assumes that you know toward which goal we SHOULD be moving.
b. Assumes that you know that being beneficial to survival is good.
But I want you not to ASSERT these things, but rather to SHOW, to PROVE, them.
2) What does "primary" mean? Who decides who or what is primary? By what standard? SHOULD someone attempt to be primary? How do you know?
Don't ASSERT it. SHOW it. PROVE it.
is the idea that all other humans are worthy of life and that they should be allowed to live that life as long as they are not preventing others to do the same.
But who says that idea is actually correct? So what if it generally extends humans' lives when more humans share the idea? How do you know that human life length is a standard for good?
Don't ASSERT it. SHOW it. PROVE it.
If the Israelites were attempting to just live in the area, trying to farm and such and were faced with attacks from that city and so had to fight back in order to ensure their survival, then attacking it was necessary
I'm so glad you stopped by to share your moral pontifications. Everything is so much clearer since you shared your assertions on morality. Maybe you should work up your thoughts into a book and publish it so that everyone in the world can benefit from your keen insights and we could achieve Utopia for real.
The next step, where they slaughtered the noncombatants of the city certainly seems excessive
Did you know that when you're in the desert and you look far away, the reflections of sunlight on the horizon make it SEEM that there's a pool of water there?
Did you know that when I tell my three year old son not to touch the hot stove, my injunction SEEMS unjust to him?
Tell me, please, why I should care how it SEEMS to you.
With unlimited power, he could have easily chosen a different course for them
Probably. But since the course He chose was actually good, why would He do something different?
Don't ASSERT it. SHOW it. PROVE it.
when it comes to the young children, there is absolutely no reason for that choice
Don't ASSERT it. SHOW it. PROVE it.
As a matter of fact, the children were sinners and God chose to put them to death. Probably they went to eternal bliss with Him in Heaven and were spared a life growing up among pagan idolaters, learning how to maximise their evil in their earthly life and stacking more and more condemnation upon themselves.
if He was really serious about not wanting humans to kill each other, why would he then purposely use them as a tool for it when He had so many other options available to Him?
He obviously ISN'T serious about not wanting humans to kill each other.
He IS, however, serious about not wanting humans to MURDER each other. But since the example of, say, Jericho, isn't murder...
He could send manna to supplement their works
Probably. But since the course He chose was actually good, why would He do something different?
Don't ASSERT it. SHOW it. PROVE it.
You know, this type of argument can go in any direction. Anything you don't like, God "could have" done better. You cut your pinky. God COULD HAVE stopped you, or healed your pinky instantly. Ergo, God is actually not worth believing in. Airtight logic!
You'll never be satisfied with anything God does because He didn't do what you wanted Him to, and He didn't consult you before proceeding.
That's the problem here - you're not God. You actually commit logical fallacy upon logical fallacy (specifically, the naturalistic fallacy, deriving OUGHTs from IS all over the place without justification) and yet you want God to do what you want Him to. You want to be God.
But you're not God. You're a tiny, ignorant, sinful and rebellious windbag who dares to tell your Creator that He's doing a lousy job. What you need to do is repent of your sin and submit your affections and opinions to Him. He knows far better everything about everything than you could hope to know about anything.
it's very hard to sum up more than a decade of rationale into a few paragraphs
True, but it would have been far better if you had attempted to answer my questions.
Tuesday, November 20, 2012
Curiosity
I admit to curiosity as to what would happen if the USA had offered Texas to Mexico to keep as their own in 1995, Mexico had said no and then told its population in Spanish that they intend to wipe out those American (insert expletive here)s, then Mexico periodically lobbed rockets into Houston and killed a few children here and there.
Never mind; probably nothing. I'm sure we'd just sit and be sad.
Never mind; probably nothing. I'm sure we'd just sit and be sad.
Monday, November 12, 2012
Mayflower UCC agitation and pro-abortion martyr complex
Yesterday, abolitionists converged upon the ground outside a gathering of one of the most pro-abortion "church"es in the state of Oklahoma to make known our presence, our dissent, and the law of Almighty God.
Our location was Mayflower Congregational UCC, home church of Dr Robin Meyers, leftist theologian extraordinaire, denier of the resurrection of Jesus the Messiah, professor of rhetoric at a local university, and incoherent, hateful interlocutor in the comments sections of his online opinion column.
Our purpose: to join with our brethren from jeremiah7.com and call this "church" to repent.
We did this not because we believe we are better than them, or anyone.
We did this not because none of us have lives or better things to do with our time.
We did this not because we were or are overcome with hate or bitterness.
We did this for all of the reasons that we have already given, the reasons that we are abolitionists. The Lord Jesus has commanded us to love our neighbor, and He gave no exceptions and no exemptions to that loving command. It is our joy, privilege, and responsibility to stand up for the preborn and to agitate to inform our culture and destroy misinformation about their daily fate. We sought the repentance of this evil church.
The people of Mayflower UCC stand condemned for their uncaring support for this murderous system, for sitting complacently under teaching from the pulpit that inflates their arrogance over being enlightened, unlike those right-wing nut job fundamentalists, for refusing to listen to the arguments, easily available and accessible for decades, that soundly (and really, pretty easily) decisively refute pro-abortion/choice rhetoric, and for actually materially and financially assisting in the murder of preborn children by devoting a portion of the church's benevolence fund to Planned Parenthood.
We may have the opportunity to prepare a fuller report of our interactions and activities this morning a little later. For now, suffice it to say that the images and posters we employed depicted in a graphic manner the horrible results of Planned Parenthood's favorite service*.
Some were offended that we would display such disgusting images and expressed their displeasure in angry words, yet had no answer to the reasonable and obvious question: Why such emotion over showing these images while no such emotion exists over the fact that the images represent the reality of death and mutilation for these precious children, created in the image of God? Still others responded as if they were robots, replying with a hollow "God bless you", showing no recognition of our obvious purpose. Several times we informed congregants that they are supporting abortion with their tithes and offerings. Yet the depths of their stiff-necked unwillingness to repent remained yet unplumbed. No, rather, the police were called for little other discernible reason than that our presence made the Mayflowerians uncomfortable.
Later this evening we have seen some of the reactions on Facebook pages of congregants who saw us there. They exhibit an amazing martyr complex. Witness this sham of feigned earnestness:
Matthew 5:38“You have heard that it was said, ‘An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth.’ 39“But I say to you, do not resist an evil person; but whoever slaps you on your right cheek, turn the other to him also. 40“If anyone wants to sue you and take your shirt, let him have your coat also. 41“Whoever forces you to go one mile, go with him two. 42“Give to him who asks of you, and do not turn away from him who wants to borrow from you.
From Dale's (and other commenters') reaction, you'd think that we abolitionists are guilty of violence against Mayflower, that we are comparable to cruel Roman legionnaires, who would insist that Judeans carry their gear for them on pain of death or malicious abuse. Their history of martyrdom leaves a great deal to be desired.
Jesus specifically says "an evil person" as the person to whom one must turn one's other cheek, in a particular type of situation. Yet where is Dale's argument that we are the evil abusers of whom Jesus spoke? Is he thinking of the gory images again? Where is his outrage against the actual fact of this evil's rampant existence?
Such pompous self-victimisation is its own reward.
Let this serve as a warning, not of abolitionists' power, reach, or tenacity in and of ourselves.
No, the Lord Jesus will judge evildoers and those who hate the good and refuse to listen to the law of Almighty God. We resort to these kinds of tactics partly because Mayflower, like so many others, is so far gone that if a change is to come, it might only come through drastic measures and shock. We will never resort to violence to further the agenda that Jesus has given to all people, but we will most certainly not be silent.
*Note that we did not say "the service it most commonly renders". All the controversy surrounding PP's existence has centered around the fact that it provides abortions. If abortions are really the tiny % of the services it provides, as it loudly (and falsely) claims so often, why not merely give up that service for the good of the greater organisation? Obviously, it is because PP has long carried on an irrational and evil love affair with murdering preborn children firsthand.
Our purpose: to join with our brethren from jeremiah7.com and call this "church" to repent.
We did this not because we believe we are better than them, or anyone.
We did this not because none of us have lives or better things to do with our time.
We did this not because we were or are overcome with hate or bitterness.
The people of Mayflower UCC stand condemned for their uncaring support for this murderous system, for sitting complacently under teaching from the pulpit that inflates their arrogance over being enlightened, unlike those right-wing nut job fundamentalists, for refusing to listen to the arguments, easily available and accessible for decades, that soundly (and really, pretty easily) decisively refute pro-abortion/choice rhetoric, and for actually materially and financially assisting in the murder of preborn children by devoting a portion of the church's benevolence fund to Planned Parenthood.
We may have the opportunity to prepare a fuller report of our interactions and activities this morning a little later. For now, suffice it to say that the images and posters we employed depicted in a graphic manner the horrible results of Planned Parenthood's favorite service*.
Later this evening we have seen some of the reactions on Facebook pages of congregants who saw us there. They exhibit an amazing martyr complex. Witness this sham of feigned earnestness:
Matthew 5:38“You have heard that it was said, ‘An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth.’ 39“But I say to you, do not resist an evil person; but whoever slaps you on your right cheek, turn the other to him also. 40“If anyone wants to sue you and take your shirt, let him have your coat also. 41“Whoever forces you to go one mile, go with him two. 42“Give to him who asks of you, and do not turn away from him who wants to borrow from you.
From Dale's (and other commenters') reaction, you'd think that we abolitionists are guilty of violence against Mayflower, that we are comparable to cruel Roman legionnaires, who would insist that Judeans carry their gear for them on pain of death or malicious abuse. Their history of martyrdom leaves a great deal to be desired.
Jesus specifically says "an evil person" as the person to whom one must turn one's other cheek, in a particular type of situation. Yet where is Dale's argument that we are the evil abusers of whom Jesus spoke? Is he thinking of the gory images again? Where is his outrage against the actual fact of this evil's rampant existence?
Such pompous self-victimisation is its own reward.
Let this serve as a warning, not of abolitionists' power, reach, or tenacity in and of ourselves.
No, the Lord Jesus will judge evildoers and those who hate the good and refuse to listen to the law of Almighty God. We resort to these kinds of tactics partly because Mayflower, like so many others, is so far gone that if a change is to come, it might only come through drastic measures and shock. We will never resort to violence to further the agenda that Jesus has given to all people, but we will most certainly not be silent.
*Note that we did not say "the service it most commonly renders". All the controversy surrounding PP's existence has centered around the fact that it provides abortions. If abortions are really the tiny % of the services it provides, as it loudly (and falsely) claims so often, why not merely give up that service for the good of the greater organisation? Obviously, it is because PP has long carried on an irrational and evil love affair with murdering preborn children firsthand.
Tuesday, November 06, 2012
If you can't join 'em, make weird arguments, Part 5
Continuing from last time...
- My position is that it is wrong and a sin for individuals to kill embryos/fetuses-
And you spend your time defending the availability of such murders.
With friends like you....
-I believe this because studies have shown that states with an abstinence only sex education programs have higher rates of teenage pregnancy and overall birth rates than states with comprehensive sex education.-
That is wrongheaded, though.
Abstinence is 100% successful in preventing unwanted pregnancy, STDs, etc.
The problems start when you STOP ABSTAINING.
By contrast, if you use a condom or something, then you have a, what? Let's be generous - 90% success in preventing unwanted pregnancy, STDs, etc. You start getting lower %s when when you STOP USING CONDOMS.
So you can go with 100% if yes and a lot lower results if no.
Or you can go with 90% if yes and the same lot lower results if no.
- I, on the other hand, think that abortions should not be make illegal,-
You are saying that you don't want murder to be illegal.
- I think abortions are awesome, but because I believe that history shows that prohibitions not only fail to stop the thing that is made illegal but they actually make the problems surrounding that thing worse-
Right, like murder, rape, slavery, and pædophilia. We've already talked about that.
-Have I correctly characterized your position?-
I think so, yes.
- Humans are not in a position to determine what is objectively morally right and wrong.-
We DISCOVER what is objectively morally right and wrong BECAUSE GOD HAS SPOKEN.
-So, just because the Nazis believed that is virtuous to kill Jewish people doesn’t mean that it is objectively right to kill Jews. -
We can know that because God has spoken.
We wouldn't know that is true if God hadn't spoken.
-It is in the best interest of society to make murder and rape illegal because the benefits far outweigh the negatives. It is not in the best interest of society to prohibit abortion because it introduces more problems than it solves.-
You are stumbling at the same place where the pro-aborts stumble.
If the preborn child is a human being, it's the exact same as murder. You presuppose this is not the case. YOu need to explain why.
-Yes, God said do not commit murder. This is our personal command. Where is the command to make abortion illegal?-
Actually, this is a poor and biblically illiterate analogy.
1) The proscription against murder was first given with Cain/Abel, and that didn't turn out well for Cain. And he WAS the society at the time.
2) Genesis 9:6 affirms God's command IN GENERAL. It's not "personal".
3) The MOsaic Law affirms capital punishment for capital crimes - murder. FOr the society.
4) Romans 13 mentions the sword for capital crimes - this is societal as well.
- How do we define poorly run and how many are we talking about?-
Since their buddies in the government protect them from being closely analysed, it's impossible to know for sure. Are you unfamiliar with the dozens of women who get sick/go into septic shock/end up with uterine performations/hemorrhage/die from abortions in the US every year?
-This is why I say that a man killing his wife is not a service—there’s no market demand for spousal homicide. -
If there weren't, there wouldn't be hit men. There'd be no money in it.
-you need to weigh the cost of buying 2 million condoms with the alternative of a potential abortion or the cost helping out a poor family with another kid.-
don't be so cynical. There's far more to "a kid" than just another mouth to feed. There are plenty of poor, and yet many are able to grow into educated, productive citizens. We might as well cull poor people, by this logic. Again your bias is against the very young. You wouldn't want us to go around gassing every fifth poor person, but you don't care if we tear up every third preborn child.
- My position is that it is wrong and a sin for individuals to kill embryos/fetuses-
And you spend your time defending the availability of such murders.
With friends like you....
-I believe this because studies have shown that states with an abstinence only sex education programs have higher rates of teenage pregnancy and overall birth rates than states with comprehensive sex education.-
That is wrongheaded, though.
Abstinence is 100% successful in preventing unwanted pregnancy, STDs, etc.
The problems start when you STOP ABSTAINING.
By contrast, if you use a condom or something, then you have a, what? Let's be generous - 90% success in preventing unwanted pregnancy, STDs, etc. You start getting lower %s when when you STOP USING CONDOMS.
So you can go with 100% if yes and a lot lower results if no.
Or you can go with 90% if yes and the same lot lower results if no.
- I, on the other hand, think that abortions should not be make illegal,-
You are saying that you don't want murder to be illegal.
- I think abortions are awesome, but because I believe that history shows that prohibitions not only fail to stop the thing that is made illegal but they actually make the problems surrounding that thing worse-
Right, like murder, rape, slavery, and pædophilia. We've already talked about that.
-Have I correctly characterized your position?-
I think so, yes.
- Humans are not in a position to determine what is objectively morally right and wrong.-
We DISCOVER what is objectively morally right and wrong BECAUSE GOD HAS SPOKEN.
-So, just because the Nazis believed that is virtuous to kill Jewish people doesn’t mean that it is objectively right to kill Jews. -
We can know that because God has spoken.
We wouldn't know that is true if God hadn't spoken.
-It is in the best interest of society to make murder and rape illegal because the benefits far outweigh the negatives. It is not in the best interest of society to prohibit abortion because it introduces more problems than it solves.-
You are stumbling at the same place where the pro-aborts stumble.
If the preborn child is a human being, it's the exact same as murder. You presuppose this is not the case. YOu need to explain why.
-Yes, God said do not commit murder. This is our personal command. Where is the command to make abortion illegal?-
Actually, this is a poor and biblically illiterate analogy.
1) The proscription against murder was first given with Cain/Abel, and that didn't turn out well for Cain. And he WAS the society at the time.
2) Genesis 9:6 affirms God's command IN GENERAL. It's not "personal".
3) The MOsaic Law affirms capital punishment for capital crimes - murder. FOr the society.
4) Romans 13 mentions the sword for capital crimes - this is societal as well.
- How do we define poorly run and how many are we talking about?-
Since their buddies in the government protect them from being closely analysed, it's impossible to know for sure. Are you unfamiliar with the dozens of women who get sick/go into septic shock/end up with uterine performations/hemorrhage/die from abortions in the US every year?
-This is why I say that a man killing his wife is not a service—there’s no market demand for spousal homicide. -
If there weren't, there wouldn't be hit men. There'd be no money in it.
-you need to weigh the cost of buying 2 million condoms with the alternative of a potential abortion or the cost helping out a poor family with another kid.-
don't be so cynical. There's far more to "a kid" than just another mouth to feed. There are plenty of poor, and yet many are able to grow into educated, productive citizens. We might as well cull poor people, by this logic. Again your bias is against the very young. You wouldn't want us to go around gassing every fifth poor person, but you don't care if we tear up every third preborn child.
