Texas bans abortion.

[JoeMorgue]

I think when you’ve gotten to the point that you’re uncomfortable with abortion but also uncomfortable with forcing women to carry pregnancy to term under certain circumstances, you need to address why a woman shouldn’t have a right to choose what’s best for them in their own unique circumstance. Everything else is just background noise.

Yeah and people have spent the last 2 decades and change perfecting the art of keeping discussions nothing but background noise.

 

[slyjoe]

Quick someone use Bayesian Statistics to prove something. Then we can all die happy.

I thought that Bayesian Statistics was used to prove immortality.

 

[Fast Eddie B]

Well someone can take the wheel and dump all those secular arguments I keep being told exist into the thread.

Be patient. I’m organizing my thoughts for a multi-part response.

 

[JoeMorgue]

I thought that Bayesian Statistics was used to prove immortality.

IT CAN DO OTHER THINGS TOO!

 

[Paul2]

I meant believing with your heart instead of your head. Faith isn't about adding together all the facts and evidence and science and believing the most probable. It means sometimes believing despite it not being probably.

The best way I can come up with to describe it is a part of scripture out of the Gospel of John:

Chapter 20:

24 But Thomas, one of the twelve, called Didymus, was not with them when Jesus came.

25 The other disciples therefore said unto him, We have seen the Lord. But he said unto them, Except I shall see in his hands the print of the nails, and put my finger into the print of the nails, and thrust my hand into his side, I will not believe.

26 And after eight days again his disciples were within, and Thomas with them: then came Jesus, the doors being shut, and stood in the midst, and said, Peace be unto you.

27 Then saith he to Thomas, Reach hither thy finger, and behold my hands; and reach hither thy hand, and thrust it into my side: and be not faithless, but believing.

28 And Thomas answered and said unto him, My Lord and my God.

29 Jesus saith unto him, Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed: blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed.

You don't have to agree me, I don't ask you to. I don't ask anyone to make and rules or regulations based on my faith. Others of my faith may do that, I do not.

You’re basically agreeing with Mark Twain: “Faith is believing what you know ain’t true.”

 

[abaddon]

The Protestant Commandments listed in the link do match Exodus 20 with the Catholic version coming close. I don't really wish to get into a Catholic vs Protestant debate here.

Of course you dont. You have an entirely different version.

Some extreme Protestants do not like the Catholic Church and some even hate it.

Plenty will merrily kill just for that. I have no valid reason to think you are any different.

That is not me.

Yep, it actually is.

While I am not will not be a Catholic,

Incoherent.

do respect the Catholic Church just like I respect all those whom believe differently than me. I believe Catholics and Protestants have more in common than different.

Yup. Both have a proclivity for child abuse.

Nice that they have that common ground.

I did know the protestant Bible and the catholic Bible differ with some books found in the Catholic Bible not in the Protestant Bible.

And there are ancient books found in caves that appear in neither. Who cares?

Sometimes those books are in a separate section in between the old and new testaments in the Protestant Bibles.

Or in the Potter Aprocrypha.

They known in protestant bibles as the apocryphal books.

Well done Captain Obvious. Next you will be telling us which shoe goes on what foot.

There not considered to be inspired, by Protestants. The original printing of the KJV contained these books(in between the old and new testaments).

I have no need of a potted christian history. I already know it and it is disgusting.

 

[sackett]

This reminds me

I have said repeatedly that I am against the new Texas legislation. Farewell.

of the time DOC announced on one of his endless Chrrrrristian! threads that, not in anger but in sorrow, he had "blocked" Akhenaten.

The workings of the Iggy button were explained to him, but he appeared not to accept them as true truth. Later, he "blocked" one or two other headed-for-Hell heathens before he finally retired from the missionary field.

But I take comfort in Proverbs 31.6. Cheers.

 

[thaiboxerken]

I meant believing with your heart instead of your head. Faith isn't about adding together all the facts and evidence and science and believing the most probable. It means sometimes believing despite it not being probably.

It's this kind of "thinking" that is the reason the Covid-19 pandemic became so severe and continues to be a problem. It's also why there are people who support Trump and believe Trump actually won the election and that it was stolen from him. It's this kind of "thinking" that lead to the holocaust. Faith is not a virtue, it's just a justification for doing and saying anything you want.

 

[acbytesla]

I meant believing with your heart instead of your head. Faith isn't about adding together all the facts and evidence and science and believing the most probable. It means sometimes believing despite it not being probably.

The best way I can come up with to describe it is a part of scripture out of the Gospel of John:

Chapter 20:

24 But Thomas, one of the twelve, called Didymus, was not with them when Jesus came.

25 The other disciples therefore said unto him, We have seen the Lord. But he said unto them, Except I shall see in his hands the print of the nails, and put my finger into the print of the nails, and thrust my hand into his side, I will not believe.

26 And after eight days again his disciples were within, and Thomas with them: then came Jesus, the doors being shut, and stood in the midst, and said, Peace be unto you.

27 Then saith he to Thomas, Reach hither thy finger, and behold my hands; and reach hither thy hand, and thrust it into my side: and be not faithless, but believing.

28 And Thomas answered and said unto him, My Lord and my God.

29 Jesus saith unto him, Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed: blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed.

You don't have to agree me, I don't ask you to. I don't ask anyone to make and rules or regulations based on my faith. Others of my faith may do that, I do not.

No, I get it. Thomas is mocked for wanting evidence and those that are gullible are praised. Just like any grifter.

I mean if you dont believe in this shady investment, we'll just sell it someone who else willing to buy without due diligence

The Bible has lots of warnings to those demanding evidence for its unbelievable claims,
Just ignore the man behind the curtain.

You are right about one thing Warbler. You are making a choice to ignore scientific evidence and logical reasoning to believe in the Bible.

Me, I look at it this way. The people 2000 years ago were less educated than the average 12 year old today. 98 percent couldn't read and didn't have books to read if they could. They crapped in out houses and had no knowledge of atoms, molecules, electrons, DNA or germs. They were incredibly superstitious. They had an excuse to be gullible. A modern educated man or woman today doesn't.

 

[ZiprHead]

nonetheless, I have faith.

You act like that's a good thing.

The word abortion is not found in the Constitution. You know that not everyone agrees that the Constitution gives women the right to an abortion. The US Supreme did say that it did in Roe v. Wade, but many disagree with that ruling have being trying to get it reversed.

Abortion was common during the days the constitution was written. It was even advertised in newspapers during the day. Surely if the FF wanted to take up that question they would have.

 

[psionl0]

If there's been a valid secular argument for abortion in the last *checks notes* ever I must have missed it.

The "potential human" argument IS religious.

Basically any argument about rights is a religious one. The maxims "all men are born equal" and all men have the right to "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" are presumed to be God given rights.

When it comes down to it, there is no moral argument against culling undesirable people out of the human race or forcing "unsuitable" people to have abortions if they become pregnant or forced sterilizations.

OTOH if "we the people" can confer general rights on the human race then we should also be able to discuss the rights (or otherwise) of an unborn child without invoking the "Godsaysso" clause.

 

[Venom]

Basically any argument about rights is a religious one. The maxims "all men are born equal" and all men have the right to "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" are presumed to be God given rights.
When it comes down to it, there is no moral argument against culling undesirable people out of the human race or forcing "unsuitable" people to have abortions if they become pregnant or forced sterilizations.

OTOH if "we the people" can confer general rights on the human race then we should also be able to discuss the rights (or otherwise) of an unborn child without invoking the "Godsaysso" clause.

Not sure about this bit.

 

[psionl0]

Not sure about this bit.

I believe that is the historical context. Regardless, rights are either given by God or by people.

 

[smartcooky]

Basically any argument about rights is a religious one. The maxims "all men are born equal" and all men have the right to "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" are presumed to be God given rights

Yes, and no

Yes it is a religious one, but that is simply a result of historical context - religion has been the dominant force in civilisation for the entire history of man, until its power over "We the People" began to wane during the Age of Enlightenment. Most of the ideas about right to life, etc, stemmed from that prior period.

No, because rights are not "God given", rather, theists attribute to God the giving of those rights. There is no proof that God exists, therefore, there can be no proof that rights are "God given".

 

[psionl0]

No, because rights are not "God given", rather, theists attribute to God the giving of those rights. There is no proof that God exists, therefore, there can be no proof that rights are "God given".

Maybe I should have said "were presumed to be God given rights" just to be more technically accurate.

Regardless, if rights are given by people then anything is on the cards.

 

[Aridas]

Maybe I should have said "were presumed to be God given rights" just to be more technically accurate.

Regardless, if rights are given by people then anything is on the cards.

When I read that, the first thing that comes to mind is "Slippery Slope Warning Alert!"

 

[Dr. Keith]

Maybe I should have said "were presumed to be God given rights" just to be more technically accurate.

Regardless, if rights are given by people then anything is on the cards.

Indeed. Welcome to history 101.

Rape, incest, murder, theft, slavery, and starvation have all been perfectly legal for some to do to others throughout most of human history without any recognized rights being violated. We have rights, they don’t. It is all just about defining who is us and who is not us.

 

[The Great Zaganza]

Of course all rights are negotiable.

 

[psionl0]

When I read that, the first thing that comes to mind is "Slippery Slope Warning Alert!"

"Whataboutism" and "slippery slope fallacy" are buzz words used to dismiss an argument without considering if it has any merit or not.

 

[Aridas]

"Whataboutism" and "slippery slope fallacy" are buzz words used to dismiss an argument without considering if they have any merit or not.

They can be. With that said, that's not what was happening there.