Abortion bill pass in Kentucky

[marplots]

It's not a "Christian principle" if it is common to every theist.

Yes, Christians are one type of theist. Was the argument going to be that the founding fathers were Muslim? That would be cool.

ETA: If it isn't part of Christianity, I'd love to see an example of a Christian who didn't believe in God.

 

[ChrisBFRPKY]

That only works if you assume that everyone agrees with your premise. An unviable foetus isn't a person.

I don't know,I consider you to be a person, yet at one time you were an unviable foetus. If you'll note, even the definition of "foetus" specifically calls them a prenatal human being........

Some may argue that doesn't make one a person, but in reality isn't that exactly what makes a person?

I think the common argument now is the heartbeat. I think it should be the DNA content. If there's enough DNA content to make a person, that's what you have obviously. And that person deserves protection.

I know someone will ask "Well what about rape?" and "What about incest?"
Obviously those are horrible crimes and the woman was the victim. However,instead of punishing the unborn with a death sentence, let's punish the perpetrator instead. If the mother does not wish to keep a child which came about as a result of said crimes, she should give it up for adoption, not kill it.

Punishing the innocent for the sins of the father? No where else in our Constitution is that allowed except for abortion.


Chris B.

 

[Delphic Oracle]

All of this, of course, completely misses the point that people who have been dead for 200 years have no say in how out country runs now, regardless of what the results of our debating their intentions or motives were produces.

 

[Belz...]

I don't know,I consider you to be a person, yet at one time you were an unviable foetus.

Earlier than that, I was unrelated atoms, too. That I'm a person now and here doesn't mean I'm a person across the entire space-time continuum.

Some may argue that doesn't make one a person, but in reality isn't that exactly what makes a person?

Isn't what what makes a person?

I think the common argument now is the heartbeat.

Which is nonsense.

I think it should be the DNA content. If there's enough DNA content to make a person, that's what you have obviously.

Every single cell in my body is a human person, by this logic. Except my sperm.

I know someone will ask "Well what about rape?" and "What about incest?"
Obviously those are horrible crimes and the woman was the victim. However,instead of punishing the unborn with a death sentence, let's punish the perpetrator instead.

I used to throw this argument around until I realised how stupid it is: we're not punishing anyone. We're allowing the pregnancy to be terminated.

 

[twinstead]

I don't know,I consider you to be a person, yet at one time you were an unviable foetus. If you'll note, even the definition of "foetus" specifically calls them a prenatal human being........

Some may argue that doesn't make one a person, but in reality isn't that exactly what makes a person?

I think the common argument now is the heartbeat. I think it should be the DNA content. If there's enough DNA content to make a person, that's what you have obviously. And that person deserves protection.

I know someone will ask "Well what about rape?" and "What about incest?"
Obviously those are horrible crimes and the woman was the victim. However,instead of punishing the unborn with a death sentence, let's punish the perpetrator instead. If the mother does not wish to keep a child which came about as a result of said crimes, she should give it up for adoption, not kill it.

Punishing the innocent for the sins of the father? No where else in our Constitution is that allowed except for abortion.


Chris B.

This is what you believe, and I respect that. However not everybody does. I disagree with your definition of when life starts, and that termination of a pregnancy is 'punishment' of a fetus. IMO making a woman keep a child of rape is punishment of the mother.

Where does that leave us?

 

[Foolmewunz]

1. I've already demonstrated the Christian principles that were used and the founders reasons and background as Christian men. This also ties with the fact that they were Masons and so each had professed a belief in a Supreme being. If you missed my post please go back and reread.

2. A Supreme Court decision based on an opinion stating we (The US) presuppose the existence of a Supreme being negates your argument completely. That's it, end of story. So there it is.

Chris B.

Hilited: Do you just repeat any old drek you've heard on Alex Jones? Could you even name the Freemasons of the original Founding Fathers (hallowed be their name)? The chief author of the Declaration and the Constitution? To the best of my recollection, neither was a Mason.

Perhaps you could cite the sources of some of your Oh Gosh claims? We're all hear to learn, after all.

 

[ChrisBFRPKY]

Earlier than that, I was unrelated atoms, too. That I'm a person now and here doesn't mean I'm a person across the entire space-time continuum.



Isn't what what makes a person?


Which is nonsense.



Every single cell in my body is a human person, by this logic. Except my sperm.



I used to throw this argument around until I realised how stupid it is: we're not punishing anyone. We're allowing the pregnancy to be terminated.

A foetus makes a human being.

We disagree. I'll leave it at that.
Chris B.

 

[ChrisBFRPKY]

Hilited: Do you just repeat any old drek you've heard on Alex Jones? Could you even name the Freemasons of the original Founding Fathers (hallowed be their name)? The chief author of the Declaration and the Constitution? To the best of my recollection, neither was a Mason.

Perhaps you could cite the sources of some of your Oh Gosh claims? We're all hear to learn, after all.

It's well known the founders were Masons. Try looking at a map of DC and the Capitol Mall, draw a few lines. You may be surprised what you find. I'm not going to ruin it for you. If you are curious, do the work. It's worth it and very enlightening.
Chris B.

 

[Belz...]

A foetus makes a human being.

We disagree. I'll leave it at that.

Fine. I'd just like to hear your rationale for that. Your DNA argument doesn't work.

 

[turingtest]

No, but belief in a supreme being is a Christian principle. Not exclusively or uniquely Christian, but part of the Christian package.

I don't see how it serves the argument to dodge this.

There's no dodging involved in pointing out that a central belief of one religious system of principles that's not an exclusive principle of that one religion (Christianity) isn't enough to identify it specifically as a central part of another system of principles (the US Constitution). Whether belief in a Supreme Being is a Christian principle that's part of the Christian package isn't the issue- it's whether the package is part of the Constitution. If you pick and choose like that, you negate the whole idea of Christianity as a system; then it doesn't matter what principles it has, it's strictly a cafeteria deal, and any religion at all can eat in that restaurant.

 

[turingtest]

Fine. I'd just like to hear your rationale for that. Your DNA argument doesn't work.

"Nobody beats The Riz."

That's it, end of story. So there it is.

 

[marplots]

There's no dodging involved in pointing out that a central belief of one religious system of principles that's not an exclusive principle of that one religion (Christianity) isn't enough to identify it specifically as a central part of another system of principles (the US Constitution). Whether belief in a Supreme Being is a Christian principle that's part of the Christian package isn't the issue- it's whether the package is part of the Constitution. If you pick and choose like that, you negate the whole idea of Christianity as a system; then it doesn't matter what principles it has, it's strictly a cafeteria deal, and any religion at all can eat in that restaurant.

Surely it has evidentiary value?

We can start with whether or not the founders (whatever that's supposed to mean) were atheists or theists. If we agree they believed in a supreme being, then they are theists - as already agreed to. Now, we can ask what brand of theist were they? If the dominant religion of the time and place is Christianity, it seems like a small step to assume they were Christians. And by that I mean they would be identified at the time as Christian by their peers - not that we can see into their long-dead heads and know for sure.

Do they have to be Christians to found the country on Christian principles? No. Presumably an educated person of the time would "know their bible." Heck, I'm an atheist and I know it fairly well. It is perfectly possible for me to use ideas I've extracted from the bible - even though I don't think they are divinely authored.

The real nut of the conversation, and the part I don't think has been argued very well, is separating out just what a "Christian principle" is supposed to mean, short of actually worshiping Jesus. That whole bit needs clarification.

 

[Worm]

It's well known the founders were Masons. Try looking at a map of DC and the Capitol Mall, draw a few lines. You may be surprised what you find. I'm not going to ruin it for you. If you are curious, do the work. It's worth it and very enlightening.
Chris B.

Look at a map of pretty much any major city and draw a few lines and you'll no doubt come up with some symbols that conspiracy nuts would consider to be significant in some way. Nothing to be gained, but if it keeps you amused, carry on.

 

[surrogate]

I know someone will ask "Well what about rape?" and "What about incest?"
Obviously those are horrible crimes and the woman was the victim. However,instead of punishing the unborn with a death sentence, let's punish the perpetrator instead. If the mother does not wish to keep a child which came about as a result of said crimes, she should give it up for adoption, not kill it.

Punishing the innocent for the sins of the father? No where else in our Constitution is that allowed except for abortion.


Chris B.

What about when the rape happens in the city and the woman doesn't cry loud enough? Are we supposed to wait until after she delivers to stone her?

 

[Finster]

No, but belief in a supreme being is a Christian principle. Not exclusively or uniquely Christian, but part of the Christian package.

I don't see how it serves the argument to dodge this.

Technically and Trivially true, but so what?

If the argument is that some of the principles the country was founding on are the same as some of the principles of some versions of Christianity ... yeh, that's probably true, but again, so what? I'm pretty sure that's not the intent of most people that feel the need to say the country was founded on Christian principles.

You can also say that some of the founding principles are the same as some Muslim principles
And some Jewish Principles,
and some Hindi principles,
and some Buddhist principles,
and some Wicca principles,
and some of Charles Manson's principles,
and some Jedi principles,
etc.

That's all fine and well until you try to use it as a reason to give special consideration to one religious view over others, or none. (which in my experience is the only reason anyone brings up the founded on Christian principles crap.)

 

[turingtest]

Surely it has evidentiary value?

(Shrug) It's a data point. Isolated from any other data points that would give it some consilience justifying a conclusion, it has about as much evidentiary value as me concluding that my having had eggs for breakfast means that's all anyone ever has for breakfast. It's a claim of exclusivity based on one rigidly isolated identifier.

We can start with whether or not the founders (whatever that's supposed to mean) were atheists or theists. If we agree they believed in a supreme being, then they are theists - as already agreed to. Now, we can ask what brand of theist were they? If the dominant religion of the time and place is Christianity, it seems like a small step to assume they were Christians. And by that I mean they would be identified at the time as Christian by their peers - not that we can see into their long-dead heads and know for sure.

No argument that they weren't Christians (generally speaking, and, by some of today's fundy standards, only loosely so).

Do they have to be Christians to found the country on Christian principles? No. Presumably an educated person of the time would "know their bible." Heck, I'm an atheist and I know it fairly well. It is perfectly possible for me to use ideas I've extracted from the bible - even though I don't think they are divinely authored.

Well, if you concede that they were Christians (as I have), then the question is really "do the principles they founded the country on have to be Christian ones?" If the claim is that the founding principles are Christian principles, then the commonality being claimed is the body of principles, not who wrote them. As you yourself say, an atheist could use Christian ideas; by the same token, a Christian could certainly use secular ones. So the whole "founders were Christians!" thing is essentially an irrelevant side-issue.

The real nut of the conversation, and the part I don't think has been argued very well, is separating out just what a "Christian principle" is supposed to mean, short of actually worshiping Jesus. That whole bit needs clarification.

Agreed- by the ones making the claim. That would be the Christians.


Side note- this is what I come to this forum for, a little intellectual exercise. It's nice to be able to have a discussion on a more stimulating level than "that's my story and I'm sticking to it, bite me leftists, lol."

 

[Foolmewunz]

It's well known the founders were Masons. Try looking at a map of DC and the Capitol Mall, draw a few lines. You may be surprised what you find. I'm not going to ruin it for you. If you are curious, do the work. It's worth it and very enlightening.
Chris B.

"It's well known".... is it? No wonder you're a Trumpista. This is the direct cousin of "People are saying...."

It's a whackjob conspiracy theory. It comes from the likes of Icke and Jones. As noted, you can find patterns in anything if you look hard enough. If only we had a good skeptical word for that.

 

[ChrisBFRPKY]

Fine. I'd just like to hear your rationale for that. Your DNA argument doesn't work.

Interesting to note, there's a theory that was proposed a few years back that all life on Earth formed from a single celled organism. My aren't we lucky it wasn't squished.
Chris B.

 

[ChrisBFRPKY]

"It's well known".... is it? No wonder you're a Trumpista. This is the direct cousin of "People are saying...."

It's a whackjob conspiracy theory. It comes from the likes of Icke and Jones. As noted, you can find patterns in anything if you look hard enough. If only we had a good skeptical word for that.

Wow

Chris B.

 

[ChrisBFRPKY]

What about when the rape happens in the city and the woman doesn't cry loud enough? Are we supposed to wait until after she delivers to stone her?

Dang, you're gettin' Old Testament on me.

Chris B.