You're saying that it is arbitrary that a foetus is inside a woman's body in a parasitic relationship (albeit necessarily so) and an infant is outside it, an independent individual?
:nono: Still 'parasitic' (dependent) for life. They cannot live on their own.
It does make the claim a bit pathetic, though doesn't it. In the United States in 2016:
about 12,000,000 conceptions, ending in
about 7,200,000 spontaneous losses (or acts of a god); and
about 893,000 abortions; and
3,945,875 live births
A lot on the table. This thread isn't really 'indictment against God.' You are comparing. It is like saying Saddam Hussein killed hundreds of thousands, so I should be able to kill just this one. You are admitting it is wrong by such a comparison, Stuart.
The actual abortion rate could be higher than that, because not all abortions are legal and reported, but then again you could decrease the abortion rate because maybe one in every three of those aborted would have been lost naturally (or by an act of a god) anyway.
No, that figure is way too high. Virtually no pregnancy carried to term is in danger these days. Regardless, it is a comparison of numbers again and exercising excusing behavior. My point again over this matter is that even if you say 'act of God' it doesn't mean you can do it. People die naturally in forest fires. It doesn't mean you can go light someone on fire, even if the number of other arsonists is decreasing. Stuart, for the most part, I see all these arguments as grasping at straws looking for an excuse. None of them hold up very well. It is why I think critical thinking solves this discussion. Simply: Is it right for you or me to make decisions about living and dying for another human being? We can vote, but that doesn't mean 'right.' We've given ourselves the right. Oregon passed a death with dignity bill. Just because they say "you can" doesn't mean we actually have the right. There are all kinds of complications with granting the power of death over life and it is never ever ever considered 'good.' Again, when Regan passed the bill, it was to make 'the best' of a desperate situation. While I personally think best is different than most, saving life should be the ultimate goal, not convenience from bad choices.
In any case, rather than objecting about the less than 1,000,000 abortions, shouldn't you spend your time in prayer, asking your god not to kill over 7,000,000 children?
Again, this is like asking me to be more concerned about Saddam Hussein than Jeffrey Dahmer.
In general, diet and exercise, and all kinds of reasons cause these and I do pray we'd be wiser than we are. In a nutshell I DON'T see it as an act of God as much as consequences for our own choices. David prayed for his hidden sins/faults. We sometimes don't even know what we are doing that will cause harm in the future. We can start by sending in a few dollars to the rainforest foundation that will keep trees, that might affect global warming that might be causing the death rate associated with hurricanes. So yes, I'm concerned about not just the unborn, but all life we affect by inadvertent exploitation. It is always a good day to do the right and better thing, if we can. I guess I'm a 'little' bleeding heart with you, I just want to do the most expedient and effective. It means while my heart indeed bleeds, I'm not going to give the guy on the street my five dollars. I 'think' you can and hopefully do appreciate all I am saying. Let's not make excuses when 'we' can and SHOULD do better. When you make that call (to do better), I'm with you. I just say on Facebook from a teacher: "These kids need to know someone cares. Forget about guns and volunteer some of your time! THAT is what they need! (to my best recollection)." I didn't put a like because I'm too busy doing other volunteer work at the moment. Maybe I should have, but I don't want to look like a hypocrite to anybody. Not to get lost in details, but again, we should be concerned AND applying ourselves to your suggestion of quality as well. I agree with you but I see inconsistency where you too are playing numbers and really, they don't add up to removing our personal responsibility. I want to say, however, right now, thanks for being this concerned about the topic. It is really important and so whichever side we fall on, I appreciate your interest in people over this topic. Even if you've been involved in an abortion, it would be water under the bridge. This is somebody else's water so I appreciate you talking about it and being concerned over lives. I believe the 'right' answer is 'sustain as many lives as we can.' A rescue effort is ALWAYS more noble than accommodation.
Only because you insist on counting as a means of argument.
▲Look at your post, Stuart. ▲ You posted the numbers.
What does the question mean?
Whenever atheists bring up God in threads, the conversation gets complicated because you are carrying your whole worldview into the conversation. Now I do as well so I'm accommodating, but it carries us off a bit on a tangent. This particular is about the value of life, by extension. If we are God's, we have no right to decide for one another who lives and who dies barring desperate circumstances. However, even without God in the pictures, we still have to meet that 'desperate' bar. We shouldn't be ending pregnancies barring a genuine demonstrable need. Desire isn't good enough. We need to be responsible.
I can't find anything scientifically coherent in there anywhere. Do you know any science?
Yes. One of the MOST important science employments is discovery and actually questioning via the scientific method. Generally, if you DON'T employ it nor ever question, you aren't doing good science. I posit that many on TOL are better scientists SIMPLY because they keep looking.
But since you mention 'common library', let me ask you this: given that you are implying that there is DNA code ready to be 'called' into the applications represented by the different species, would you predict that the same job would be done using the same code in different species?
In a nutshell, it is like Legos. You can build a Millennial Falcon or a Batmobile but not out of the same package. God can use similar building blocks but my cells look and are made largely different than the cells of an onion.
But, since 1869, complexity in biological systems has been completely explained in terms of entirely natural forces, so the specific need for a biological designer is out of date by as much as 149 years. And so far there is nothing in principle that demands a designer in any aspect of our existence.
No, I disagree with this. I mean, perhaps where some are concerned but it does not meet my higher critical thinking standards to be viable. Who am I that that should be a function? One of the over 70% of America that calls that figure into question. It means it is ENTIRELY assailable as a proposition where kids in high school science class simply aren't buying it.
It sounds like such a tedious and irrelevant question that no curious human should ever detain himself with it.
Very politely stated but you know, as well as I do, that you couldn't even type that without fingers that you take for granted but have NO power to have attained. You use what you did NOT provide for yourself, but were given (be it nature or God between us). IOW, you 'can' take it for granted, but it would be incredibly arrogant to take credit for what is COMPLETELY out of your purview to have accomplished.
Sorry, what virtually doesn't exist?
Another rabbit trail from here so I'll let this one slide. We are covering it in the rest of our conversation anyway.
Still looks more like counting to me. Many women choose abortion because they know that it is the wrong time in their lives to have a child.
...which is a horrible excuse for ending a life.
They know that later in life, or in circumstances where they have had the opportunity to have a career, gain some life experience and put themselves on a more secure financial footing, that there will be a time when having children is the right thing for them. The environment of the upbringing of the child will be richer, and the experience will be more rewarding for all involved, with an increased quality of life all round.
You'd shoot her if she said and did that with a four year old.
lain: When abortion was made 'legal' it was never intended for this poor reason.
Now, you would step in and say no, none of that is allowed. Well, I can't see any basis for you doing that, especially given the facts above. Instead of making life more difficult for women you don't know, get praying, get those rates of chromosomal abnormalities down, and so forth.
Again, you'd shoot the mother that did this to a four year old.
lain:
None of that is intended to diminish the experience of a woman who takes her pregnancy to term at an early age or in impoverished circumstances. The point is that the only person who should be allowed to make these decisions is that woman. Not even her husband should have any right to decide on her medical consent for her. I know that will startle the religiously conservative, who have railed against the rights of half the population for a very long time.
:nono: On the premise that
you'd shoot her for killing her four year old, this is put to rest. YOU have the right and power to stop that atrocity.
Maybe, but why would anyone in their right mind bother wasting their life with such fantasies?
:chuckle:
You are the one playing with theological ideas. Because
you've spent so much time on a theology board, your complain looks benign or impotent.
But if you don't love the god back, then it's burning in sulfur for you. The totalitarian dream. Compulsory love, like they must show for Kim Jong-Un in North Korea. It seems to me you can't bring yourself to even wonder if this particular god of which you write is actually incompetent. The problem of evil, failing to vanquish satan except by human sacrifice, apparently needing to commit genocide against the Amalekites, and indeed having to drown almost the entire population, and even then continuing to view humanity as inherently corrupt after all that purging.
See? You can't help yourself :chuckle:
It's almost as if someone has made all of that up in order to effect a con on as many people as possible. It's exactly like that, in fact.
It is why I suggest further study. You are delving into theology speculation and need the theology background to carry the conversation.
Well, she has set a good example the hard way. That deserves only respect.
Thanks. I think so too. In the end, almost always from a parent, 'do as I say, not as I do' IS good parenting, at least for the child's welfare. It is a mindset change and I think you can acquiesce that. Do as I say may not 'look' fair, but it is more than fair, and in fact loving. This too is a bit of an extended trail, but it points back to God having those same rights over us. Again, you are more interested in theology than you realize because you've been here on TOL a very long time and you ask a lot of theology questions. There is no possible way it then, isn't important to you. Again, some of this would be fast-tracked by some theology education for you. You ARE interested whether you admit that to yourself or not.
I think anger is an appropriate response to the claims and excesses of christianity. If cigarettes were invented today, they would be banned under hazardous substances regulations, and likewise if christianity was invented today it would be ridiculed out of existence, before it had a chance to lead to so much persecution and misery.
No it wouldn't because "Christ" invented it. Nice try, but it is NOT toxic. It is the cure for all who need a physician. I wouldn't have been nearly as nice or a viable citizen without it, so even by world standards, it is to be embraced. It is much more than that, but for you, outside looking in, it would be your first concern. It kept me out of a lot of trouble taxpayers would be incarcerating me for. This too is a long trail from the topic. As I said, you are very interested in theology.
Yes, you will always need a lingua franca. Although, ironically, the lingua franca used in Europe was a mixture of Italian with French, Greek, Arabic, and Spanish,and the expression translates as everyone speaking French (which also nearly happened in the US).
Stuart
:up: