The US wouldn't be in such a mess if it were Christian

republicanchick

New member
Y or N?


If America got rid of legalized abortion..

The other countries would feel obliged to follow... or at least u would think so.

But anyway, if we got rid of baby killing, maybe other things would naturally fall into place

legalized abortion sends the message to all of society that human life is... (for the very young now, but in the future...)


garbage

Wow... what a message... and all of us seem to be absorbing by osmosis that hideous message.

You can see it on the forums.. People often rip ea other up verbally like the babies in the womb are being ripped up physically

God help us

Merry Christmas
 

Town Heretic

Out of Order
Hall of Fame
when did I say otherwise?
It's at very least a reasonable reading of your context free:
The US is supposed to be a Christian nation.
It's clearer to say it's a nation of Christians, but it wasn't supposed to be any particular religion. So your phrasing invited my answer.

don't read into my words things that are not there
Be more precise with your use of language, supra. Some people would write what you wrote and mean it, literally. That the nation was founded and meant to be a Christian one.


Y or N?

If America got rid of legalized abortion..

The other countries would feel obliged to follow... or at least u would think so.
No. Most countries would follow their own lights, though we might influence by example.

But anyway, if we got rid of baby killing, maybe other things would naturally fall into place

legalized abortion sends the message to all of society that human life is... (for the very young now, but in the future...) garbage
I think how we protect the least empowered in a society impacts the collective. Or, there's some real truth in what you say, though the objection to abortion has to be a different one (and thankfully there are very serious and completely objective arguments that can be advanced under color of law without our agreed subjective valuation entering into it).
 

Mr. 5020

New member
I am working on a Bible study where I tell people to stop calling it a Christian nation.

The exact phrasing in my notes is, "Get over it."
 

republicanchick

New member
I think how we protect the least empowered in a society impacts the collective. Or, there's some real truth in what you say, though the objection to abortion has to be a different one (and thankfully there are very serious and completely objective arguments that can be advanced under color of law without our agreed subjective valuation entering into it).

hey, admittedly, I can word things a little more precisely here and there. I know it may surprise many here, but

:jawdrop:

I am human... yeh, true story...

Anyway, you may want to consider your own advice b/c I do not understand your last comments in this post.

Habla Engles?

:cool:
 

republicanchick

New member
I am working on a Bible study where I tell people to stop calling it a Christian nation.

The exact phrasing in my notes is, "Get over it."

we are not a good Christian nation, that is for sure. Again, we can't be that with the hypocrisy of baby killing

we're just wanna be Chstians, for the most part. The Christians let the antichrists rule most of the time...

really sad

The devil has come down hard on the world for he knows he has but a short time


:sigh:
 

Town Heretic

Out of Order
Hall of Fame
hey, admittedly, I can word things a little more precisely here and there. I know it may surprise many here, but

:jawdrop:

I am human... yeh, true story...
Doesn't bother me, I was only explaining why I answered you the way I did, the problem in the level of contextual ambiguity your writing contained on the point.

Anyway, you may want to consider your own advice b/c I do not understand your last comments in this post.
There's a difference between being inherently ambiguous and complexity in terms of construction and usage.

Habla Engles?
Okay, simplifying the construction, what I essentially said was that while I thought your response to abortion was correct, the argument we have to make against it can't be that one because it's inherently subjective. We have to make an argument against abortion from right (legal right) and not from value. Everyone values differently but we all possess the same rights under the law.

And I noted there are arguments about right that should protect the unborn.
 
Last edited:

resodko

BANNED
Banned
I am working on a Bible study where I tell people to stop calling it a Christian nation.

The exact phrasing in my notes is, "Get over it."

with the forecast increase in hispanic population, becoming more prevalent than caucasians, and remaining firmly rcc, might we not see america becoming once again a Christian nation?
 

jgarden

BANNED
Banned
"Republicanchick" fails to realize that even if Roe v Wade was reversed today, women would still chose to undergo abortions for a variety of reasons.

Criminalizing abortion would only incarcerate 100 000's of young women (not men) annually for an action that the majority of Americans don't consider a crime!
 

Quincy

New member
"Republicanchick" fails to realize that even if Roe v Wade was reversed today, women would still chose to undergo abortions for a variety of reasons.

Criminalizing abortion would only incarcerate 100 000's of young women (not men) annually for an action that the majority of Americans don't consider a crime!

They won't catch 100,000s of these girls. They'll be lucky to catch 10s of thousands. They can't even catch a large portion of all drug users and sellers. If abortion gets outlawed, cities aren't going to magically get additional funding or available personnel to hire the cops and build the facilities they'd need to catch them.

I think the issue to be most concerned about is the amount of young women who will mess up their bodies having unhygienic and unprofessional procedures done.
 

The Barbarian

BANNED
Banned
How Christian a nation were we?

Can anyone here imagine Thomas Jefferson, given his published works, ever being nominated for much less being elected for president today? Forget his acceptance of slavery which almost everyone accepted then.

He and Madison would have been crucified as anti-Christian.
 

republicanchick

New member
simplifying the construction, what I essentially said was that while I thought your response to abortion was correct, the argument we have to make against it can't be that one because it's inherently subjective. We have to make an argument against abortion from right (legal right) and not from value. Everyone values differently but we all possess the same rights under the law.

.

It is laughable that I of all people have a "subjective" view of abortion.

all societies on Earth have laws against murder. While the majority can get some things very wrong @ times, it doesn't here, and for quite OBVIOUS reasons.

My view on abortion is that

if "it" is conceived of humans, "it" is human

if "it" is alive and human (science amazingly says YES), you commit murder if you kill "it"

It doesn't get more objective than that.

There are other ways to address pregnant women's concernss and problems. Murder should never be an option.



+
 

republicanchick

New member
So when were we? Back when we had slavery and segregation? Genocide of the Natives?

There have always been strong christians in America, strong Christians long ago who helped found this country

the fact that the majority don't always listen to them (or even validate them) is not the fault of the ones who are right (the pro life, etc)

Jesus did say that FEW would find the narrow way to Heaven, and so w e expect the world to be run by... the lawless (except in rare moments when Right wins: Reagan, etc)



+
 

Town Heretic

Out of Order
Hall of Fame
It is laughable that I of all people have a "subjective" view of abortion.
No, it's not laughable and it's not an insult. Subjective is any view that isn't based on an objective standard. Any faith position, including mine, is necessarily subjective. Thankfully for both of us there are objective arguments that can be made against abortion.

all societies on Earth have laws against murder.
They do. And a great many don't define abortion as murder, which goes to the underlying problem of right, being and when the two collide.

My view on abortion is that

if "it" is conceived of humans, "it" is human
Is an amputated finger "human" and if so does it have rights? If you understand the point of that you understand the problem in your premise.

if "it" is alive and human (science amazingly says YES), you commit murder if you kill "it"
Your finger is only alive until you cut it off from the source. Then it won't sustain itself. Just giving you an ongoing view of the counter.

Here's another way of contesting abortion. In our compact we've agreed and founded our compact on the notion that at some point certain we have rights that can't be abridged/abrogated/cut off from us without our violating the compact in a fairly serious fashion (committing murder, by way of example).

That's not contested by anyone. It's a fact of law.

Equally uncontested is the fact that I stand here today with those rights, the chief of which is to life itself, fully vested and protected by the compact. Unless I do something fairly horrible it can't be taken from me.

Looking back on my life, at what point can we objectively remove those vested rights? Because if you can't objectively assign that point, if you only have an arbitrary valuation to rest on (breath, brain waves, teeth, birth, which are each subjective valuations) then you can't abrogate my rights.

So we can't establish, objectively, a point where right can be removed. We are equally then incapable of asserting, objectively, demonstrably, when those rights attach.

But we know they do. They inarguably do. And we know that when they do we don't have the right to abridge them without that earlier mentioned failure (like murder) that self abrogates right.

The unborn cannot violate the compact and then cannot abrogate their own right to life, if they possess it.

Recalling that we can't establish an objective point where right vests or fails we can't objectively say whether or not the unborn possess those rights, only that at some point along our line of being those rights are found.

If we don't have the right to abrogate right and we cannot say with objective certainty where along that line right attaches, we must then protect right at every point along that chronological line or risk abrogating what we agree we have no right to abrogate absent an offense we must agree cannot be found in the unborn.

Protecting the unborn is then the only means to protect right we agree exists against an abrogation we agree we aren't entitled to absent circumstances that can't apply.
 

republicanchick

New member
No, it's not laughable and it's not an insult. Subjective is any view that isn't based on an objective standard. Any faith position, including mine, is necessarily subjective.
nO, my position is not subjective AT ALL. You w ant to call it that 4 your own (subjective) reasons

They do. And a great many don't define abortion as murder, which goes to the underlying problem of right, being and when the two collide.
so you would leave it entirely up to HUMANS to decide what is human life and deserving of protection and what is not? well, THAT means being subjective, as (of course) all humans "believe" or c laim to believe differently...(I say Claim to believe b/c many are liars and only ACT like they believe something)
Is an amputated finger "human" and if so does it have rights?
an amputated finger does not GROW. Didn't i mention growing? hmmm... OK maybe not... my apologies

gIf you understand the point of that you understand the problem in your premise.
The problem is that you want to complicate TRUTH. If i said trees take in water from their leaves, you would say t hat is not necessarily true. If i told you it 1 + 1 is 2 you would say that is not necessarily true. don't be so open minded your brains fall out... or so analyzing... or whatever the heck u call it
Your finger is only alive until you cut it off from the source. Then it won't sustain itself.
wrong, the finger is never alive. the person attached to it is what is alive
Here's another way of contesting abortion. In our compact we've agreed and founded our compact on the notion that at some point certain we have rights that can't be abridged/abrogated/cut off from us without our violating the compact in a fairly serious fashion (committing murder, by way of example).

...equally uncontested is the fact that I stand here today with those rights, the chief of which is to life itself, fully vested and protected by the compact. Unless I do something fairly horrible it can't be taken from me.

Looking back on my life, at what point can we objectively remove those vested rights? Because if you can't objectively assign that point, if you only have an arbitrary valuation to rest on (breath, brain waves, teeth, birth, which are each subjective valuations) then you can't abrogate my rights.
why not?
So we can't establish, objectively, a point where right can be removed. We are equally then incapable of asserting, objectively, demonstrably, when those rights attach.
so we give LIFE the benefit of the doubt (althoguh some of us KNOW life begins.. surprise, surprise, at the BEGINNING) -- I mean you know: BEGINS!!! and Beginning... kind of alike there
The unborn cannot violate the compact and then cannot abrogate their own right to life, if they possess it.
why the IF? what is it about the unborn that makes you question they possess any inherent right to continue living? unplanned? inconvenient? Theere is no good reason to murder
Recalling that we can't establish an objective point where right vests or fails we can't objectively say whether or not the unborn possess those rights, only that at some point along our line of being those rights are found.
go ahead and complicate what is not complicated. That is YOUR choice. I choose Truth... objective t ruth.

bje


If we don't have the right to abrogate right and we cannot say with objective certainty where along that line right attaches, we must then protect right at every point along that chronological line or risk abrogating what we agree we have no right to abrogate absent an offense we must agree cannot be found in the unborn.

Protecting the unborn is then the only means to protect right.

OK... now i am getting you (finally... w hew!)



+
 

Town Heretic

Out of Order
Hall of Fame
nO, my position is not subjective AT ALL. You w ant to call it that 4 your own (subjective) reasons

No, it's subjective because it rests on a premise that isn't universally accepted or demonstrated.

so you would leave it entirely up to HUMANS to decide what is human life and deserving of protection and what is not?
It's already happened. We're not talking about a new government, but how we protect under the one we have. At least that's what we're talking about if we're having a meaningful conversation about impacting abortion.

well, THAT means being subjective, as (of course) all humans "believe" or c laim to believe differently...
You can argue that almost anything outside of math is subjective, but that's still not the point. We have a standard in place and we have to relate to that standard, make our objection to the practice objective within the context of the law, which is what I just did.

(I say Claim to believe b/c many are liars and only ACT like they believe something) an amputated finger does not GROW. Didn't i mention growing? hmmm... OK maybe not... my apologies
And why is growth the deciding point? What makes that an objective determiner? Nothing. It's just a point where you've assigned value. That was my point earlier in noting that some people assign the vesting of right with literal birth, some with brain waves, etc. But none of those points are arguably objectively true. They're circular investments of value.

The good news is the argument I advanced doesn't need them, only requires the established right and the fact that we can't assign or abrogate right without an arbitrary assignment that can't be sufficient. It's what eventually makes the protection of every point along our line of being a necessity.

The problem is that you want to complicate TRUTH.
No, the problem is you're not listening. The argument is sound, at no point relies on any subjective valuation, only upon the agreed and established premises in law and arrives at an unavoidable protection of human life at every point.
 

republicanchick

New member
"Republicanchick" fails to realize that even if Roe v Wade was reversed today, women would still chose to undergo abortions for a variety of reasons.

Criminalizing abortion would only incarcerate 100 000's of young women (not men) annually for an action that the majority of Americans don't consider a crime!

typical liberal scare tactics. Get real. I have never advocated incarcertaing anyone..but again: typical liberal


:nightall::nightall::blabla:
 

TomO

Get used to it.
Hall of Fame
No, the problem is you're not listening. The argument is sound, at no point relies on any subjective valuation, only upon the agreed and established premises in law and arrives at an unavoidable protection of human life at every point.

Trying to teach the back-stroke to someone splashing about in the kiddie pool, I see. :plain:
 

Zeke

Well-known member
How Christian a nation were we?

Can anyone here imagine Thomas Jefferson, given his published works, ever being nominated for much less being elected for president today? Forget his acceptance of slavery which almost everyone accepted then.

He and Madison would have been crucified as anti-Christian.

Good point, but fails to acknowledge slavery, and it's acceptance never went away, it just morphed into legalistic restraints under the banner of freedom and justice for all, clarification and legal binding ability being a sliding scale depending on what level or bar one is being made comfortable by supporting these legal shackles, and how long of a chain one is permitted to wear for services rendered.

That G.I.F.T keeps on re-fusing the system of slavery modeled after the biblical imputation of debt onto the unborn.
 
Top