• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

pro-life[W:1119]

Re: pro-life

My point is that the law can be unjust, whether or not it is legal.

So why would you want society to make judgements making the laws unjust for women?
 
Re: pro-life

NOW YOU ARE STUPIDLY LYING ABOUT WHAT I WROTE. I said they don't always oppose abortion, which is a very different thing from supporting it. (Neutrality is a real political position.)


FALSE. You discredited something on a totally different subject. You didn't provide anything that discredits the Jewish view about abortion.


AND YET I HAVE DONE THAT ON OTHER OCCASIONS. I've specifically asked you to prove that something was wrong with abortion. And so far you have totally failed to offer anything that can withstand close scrutiny.

You refuse to acknowledge the Bible, the absolute truth, which I have cited on multiple occasions.
 
Re: pro-life

Animals and plants do not have souls.
THEY ARE STILL ALIVE. They qualify as "life". If you are going to blather about protecting "life", and actually mean only protecting human life, you need to be specific in what you say, not generic.

They are provided by God as resources for the human race. He tells us to tame the earth in Genesis, including ruling over the beasts of the sky, sea, and ground.
MORE THAN THAT. Read Genesis 2:15. Destroying hundreds of entire species every year hardly qualifies as "keeping". In more detail, see #15 on this list.

a human being has one from the moment of conception.
YOUR MERE UNSUPPORTED SAY-SO IS STILL WORTHLESS WITHOUT EVIDENCE. Have you forgotten already what I told you about the "infallible" Church changing its opinion about ensoulment in the 1800s?
 
Re: pro-life

You refuse to acknowledge the Bible, the absolute truth, which I have cited on multiple occasions.

But not all follow the Bible, and they too are citizens whose opinions count, however much you or I might disagree with their views.
 
Re: pro-life

No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law...

From the XIV Amendment

That’s not a right to life. It’s a right for people not to be unjustly killed by governments or government agencies.
 
Re: pro-life

You refuse to acknowledge the Bible, the absolute truth, which I have cited on multiple occasions.

The Bible is your opinion of the absolute truth.
 
Re: pro-life

God tells us to be fruitful and multiply,
AND WE HAVE DONE THAT --and even over-done that. Have you not heard about how humanity could benefit from having the resources of 3 more whole empty Earths, to nicely support the existing population on just this one Earth? But since we don't actually have 3 more Earths available, it means that existing global resources are already inadequate, for nicely supporting the existing population. Are you saying God wants up to 99% of the human species to die in a Malthusian Catatastrophe? Because that is what abortion opponents are actively working toward causing to happen!

and yet we kill our offspring in the womb.
NOT ALL OF THEM, BY ANY STRETCH OF FIGURING. World human population has been pretty-steadily growing at about 80 million extra mouths-to-feed every year for the last 40 years --despite all the abortions ever done in that same time-frame. On what basis did the aborted NEED to get born?

If God tells us to do something, it is highly likely that He has the provisions made to make it possible.
SEE ABOVE. We have successfully been fruitful and multiplied. Why do we need to do more of that, when the world is so obviously overpopulated?

Humanity only lives on 3% of the earth's surface, and yet you say that we are overpopulated?
ABSOLUTELY. Because humans need more than just living space to survive. They need support systems --vast numbers of square miles of agriculture, for example. Yet this and this is what we are doing to our farmlands. There is no way population can continue to grow endlessly. See this picture?
 
Re: pro-life

You refuse to acknowledge the Bible,
I FULLY ACKNOWLEDGE THAT THE BIBLE EXISTS. I deny that its significance is what your worthless/unsupported mere say-so claims it to be.

the absolute truth,
ABSOLUTELY FALSE IN VARIOUS PLACES. For example, archaeologists have found the Philistines. Guess what? The Bible's description of them is wrong! Propaganda spouted by winners, and nothing more than that.

ANOTHER PLACE where the Bible is totally wrong is the Great Flood. There is no evidence that that was a global event, which means it was a huge exaggeration, and therefore not-at-all "absolute truth". Furthermore, not only is there no evidence for it being a global event, we have evidence that it wasn't. For example, India and China have both been continuously occupied, right through the Biblical time-frame for the Flood. AND there are various living things that should have been killed by salt water, if they had been Flooded.

which I have cited on multiple occasions.
AND WHICH PROVE NOTHING. God did not sit down and write the Bible. Humans wrote it, and humans are known liars.
 
Re: pro-life

Reference to RvW because you asked where the government declared the unborn to be not human.

Btw, RvW did no such thing.
 
Re: pro-life

The constitution of our country guarantees its citizens the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

You are confusing the United States Constitution with the Declaration of Independence.

The DOI is not incorporated in the Constitution.

In fact the idea of natural rights that Thomas Jefferson based the DOI most likely came from John Locke.

John Locke said " all men are born equally free" and hold certain " natural rights"...

The Open Door Web Site : History : John Locke and the "Treatises on Government

The Open Door Web Site : History : John Locke and the "Treatises on Government

The key word is born.
 
Last edited:
Re: pro-life

Minnie, tried to PM you but your mailbox is full. It was negative. You'll know what I mean.
 
Re: pro-life

I FULLY ACKNOWLEDGE THAT THE BIBLE EXISTS. I deny that its significance is what your worthless/unsupported mere say-so claims it to be.


ABSOLUTELY FALSE IN VARIOUS PLACES. For example, archaeologists have found the Philistines. Guess what? The Bible's description of them is wrong! Propaganda spouted by winners, and nothing more than that.

ANOTHER PLACE where the Bible is totally wrong is the Great Flood. There is no evidence that that was a global event, which means it was a huge exaggeration, and therefore not-at-all "absolute truth". Furthermore, not only is there no evidence for it being a global event, we have evidence that it wasn't. For example, India and China have both been continuously occupied, right through the Biblical time-frame for the Flood. AND there are various living things that should have been killed by salt water, if they had been Flooded.


AND WHICH PROVE NOTHING. God did not sit down and write the Bible. Humans wrote it, and humans are known liars.

You really like all caps.

First, I meant that you refuse to acknowledge Biblical evidence of my claims because you reject its teachings.

Second, how do the researchers know that those are the Philistines?

Third, in a flood occurring 4400 years ago, the cities you mentioned could have been built after the Flood.

And fourth, you assume that the oceans have always been as salty as they have been, or that the flood was of salt water. Rather, theologians hold that the flood waters came from two major sources: 1. the rain and 2. the "fountains of the deep," enormous reservoirs of underground freshwater that burst up like geysers when the flood occurred. Then, over the course of history with processes like erosion and evaporation, the salt level of these oceans eventually rose to the current saline content we have today, which is still rising. As for the reason that the oceans aren't yet dead like the Dead Sea, it is because they've only been gaining salt for the past 4400 years.
 
Re: pro-life

You are confusing the United States Constitution with the Declaration of Independence.

The DOI is not incorporated in the Constitution.

In fact the idea of natural rights that Thomas Jefferson based the DOI most likely came from John Locke.

John Locke said " all men are born equally free" and hold certain " natural rights"...

The Open Door Web Site : History : John Locke and the "Treatises on Government

The Open Door Web Site : History : John Locke and the "Treatises on Government

The key word is born.

I realize that was an error. However, in turn, I refer to the Fourteenth Amendment, stating that no one may be denied the right to life, liberty, or the pursuit of happiness without the due process and protection of the law.
 
Re: pro-life

I realize that was an error. However, in turn, I refer to the Fourteenth Amendment, stating that no one may be denied the right to life, liberty, or the pursuit of happiness without the due process and protection of the law.

We are free to the right to life liberty and pursuit of happiness. We are not free from the consequences of our actions.
 
Re: pro-life

You really like all caps.
THIS STYLE IS DELIBERATE. I don't use it when I post stuff under my real name.

First, I meant that you refuse to acknowledge Biblical evidence
CLAIMS AND EVIDENCE ARE TWO DIFFERENT THINGS. It is not my fault that you seem unable to understand that difference.

of my claims because you reject its teachings.
NOT EVERYTHING ABOUT IT IS WRONG. I once met an Egyptian fellow whose very name consisted of, basically, all the names of his male forebears for something like 20 previous generations. And so I doubt that the genalogies listed in the Bible are incorrect. On the other hand, such mundane stuff has absolutely nothing to do with qualifying as "Word of God" stuff. You cannot find anyone who claims God literally sat down somewhere and wrote the Bible. Humans wrote 100% of it. And that means every single claim in it about God, which cannot be supported with external evidence (like the Flood), is suspect, not to be believed just because of mere say-so.

Second, how do the researchers know that those are the Philistines?
HOW DID THE BIBLE SAY THEY COULD BE IDENTIFIED? Duuuuuuuhhhhhh!!! If you insist the Bible is true, then you must accept that when Biblical descriptions match real observations....

Third, in a flood occurring 4400 years ago, the cities you mentioned could have been built after the Flood.
EXCEPT I SPECIFIED MUCH-OLDER CITIES THAN THAT. Jericho, for example, right there in Canaan, is known to have been continuously occupied for more than 10,000 years. Ancient cities tend to have many layers of ruins under them, and if a Flood had intervened at Jericho, one of those layers would be full of ancient dried mud. Too bad there isn't such a layer.

And fourth, you assume that the oceans have always been as salty as they have been, or that the flood was of salt water.
NOPE. I'm simply aware that 40 days of Flood is plenty of time to allow fresh water added to the salty oceans (regardless of where the fresh water came from) to mix with salty ocean water, all over the world. Not to mention that even without the salt, 40 days submerged is enough to drown almost any land-plant.

As for the reason that the oceans aren't yet dead like the Dead Sea, it is because they've only been gaining salt for the past 4400 years.
IGNORANTLY FALSE. There are geologic processes that remove salt from oceans. For one, "subduction" causes both land and salty ocean water to flow deeper underground. The water is literally a lubricant helping the process. Far from the subduction zone the Earth's interior heat causes the water to rise, gradually through rocks (can emerge via geyser, for example), but the salt stays down there.

FOR ANOTHER, gradually moving geological plates can sometimes block whole sections of ocean water in such a way that it can evaporate, leaving the salt behind. The exposed "salt flat" then gets gradually covered with blowing dust (which weighs less than salt crystals), and if this layer becomes thick enough, even if the ocean manages to return, that salt is now locked away, and generally stays locked away. This description has happened to the Mediterranean Sea more than once --see where that linked article talks about "layers of salt", because each separate layer resulted from a dried-out sea. Other places where similar events happened have been subjected to geological uplift, and are now both above sea level, and might be getting mined for salt.
 
Re: pro-life

I realize that was an error. However, in turn, I refer to the Fourteenth Amendment, stating that no one may be denied the right to life, liberty, or the pursuit of happiness without the due process and protection of the law.

And as Removable Mind pointed out the Forthteenth Amendment is referring to the US government denying a person of governmental rights not natural rights without due process.
 
Re: pro-life

I realize that was an error. However, in turn, I refer to the Fourteenth Amendment, stating that no one may be denied the right to life, liberty, or the pursuit of happiness without the due process and protection of the law.

You cannot recognize any of those for thte unborn unless you violate them for the woman (if remaining pregnant is against her will).

What justifies violating women's rights in order to accord the exact same things to the unborn?

Again...if you believe the unborn's rights should supersede those of women...you value the unborn more.

Which is fine, that's a personal opinion, but you should acknowledge it.

I value the unborn, but I value all born people more.
 
Re: pro-life

You really like all caps.

First, I meant that you refuse to acknowledge Biblical evidence of my claims because you reject its teachings.

Second, how do the researchers know that those are the Philistines?

Third, in a flood occurring 4400 years ago, the cities you mentioned could have been built after the Flood.

And fourth, you assume that the oceans have always been as salty as they have been, or that the flood was of salt water. Rather, theologians hold that the flood waters came from two major sources: 1. the rain and 2. the "fountains of the deep," enormous reservoirs of underground freshwater that burst up like geysers when the flood occurred. Then, over the course of history with processes like erosion and evaporation, the salt level of these oceans eventually rose to the current saline content we have today, which is still rising. As for the reason that the oceans aren't yet dead like the Dead Sea, it is because they've only been gaining salt for the past 4400 years.

Do you actually believe the flood happened and that it only happened 4,400 years ago? The Pyramids are 5,500 years old.
 
Re: pro-life

I realize that was an error. However, in turn, I refer to the Fourteenth Amendment, stating that no one may be denied the right to life, liberty, or the pursuit of happiness without the due process and protection of the law.

When discussing an Amendment it works best when you actually know what it says. Pusuit of happiness? Yeah... no.


No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
 
Re: pro-life

It's a human life, but you still have the right to kill it.
 
Re: pro-life

It's a human life, but you still have the right to kill it.

Only the woman within whose body it resides or her legal guardian has the right to electively decide to abort the pregnacy before
Viability.
 
Re: pro-life

Precisely.
YET YOU SEEM TO FAIL TO UNDERSTAND EXACTLY WHAT WAS DESCRIBED. We are not free from experiencing consequences of our actions. However, we are free with respect to how we deal with those consequences. Very few actions are associated with zero options regarding dealing with consequences. You and other abortion opponents idiotically think that pregnancy is a consequence that must be tolerated. Nope! Not in the slightest!
 
Re: pro-life

THIS STYLE IS DELIBERATE. I don't use it when I post stuff under my real name.


CLAIMS AND EVIDENCE ARE TWO DIFFERENT THINGS. It is not my fault that you seem unable to understand that difference.


NOT EVERYTHING ABOUT IT IS WRONG. I once met an Egyptian fellow whose very name consisted of, basically, all the names of his male forebears for something like 20 previous generations. And so I doubt that the genalogies listed in the Bible are incorrect. On the other hand, such mundane stuff has absolutely nothing to do with qualifying as "Word of God" stuff. You cannot find anyone who claims God literally sat down somewhere and wrote the Bible. Humans wrote 100% of it. And that means every single claim in it about God, which cannot be supported with external evidence (like the Flood), is suspect, not to be believed just because of mere say-so.


HOW DID THE BIBLE SAY THEY COULD BE IDENTIFIED? Duuuuuuuhhhhhh!!! If you insist the Bible is true, then you must accept that when Biblical descriptions match real observations....


EXCEPT I SPECIFIED MUCH-OLDER CITIES THAN THAT. Jericho, for example, right there in Canaan, is known to have been continuously occupied for more than 10,000 years. Ancient cities tend to have many layers of ruins under them, and if a Flood had intervened at Jericho, one of those layers would be full of ancient dried mud. Too bad there isn't such a layer.


NOPE. I'm simply aware that 40 days of Flood is plenty of time to allow fresh water added to the salty oceans (regardless of where the fresh water came from) to mix with salty ocean water, all over the world. Not to mention that even without the salt, 40 days submerged is enough to drown almost any land-plant.


IGNORANTLY FALSE. There are geologic processes that remove salt from oceans. For one, "subduction" causes both land and salty ocean water to flow deeper underground. The water is literally a lubricant helping the process. Far from the subduction zone the Earth's interior heat causes the water to rise, gradually through rocks (can emerge via geyser, for example), but the salt stays down there.

FOR ANOTHER, gradually moving geological plates can sometimes block whole sections of ocean water in such a way that it can evaporate, leaving the salt behind. The exposed "salt flat" then gets gradually covered with blowing dust (which weighs less than salt crystals), and if this layer becomes thick enough, even if the ocean manages to return, that salt is now locked away, and generally stays locked away. This description has happened to the Mediterranean Sea more than once --see where that linked article talks about "layers of salt", because each separate layer resulted from a dried-out sea. Other places where similar events happened have been subjected to geological uplift, and are now both above sea level, and might be getting mined for salt.

If that was the case, then why did you only cite India and China, the two oldest cities on your source, rather than Jericho? Besides, the article you provided merely assumes that Jericho is that old, never stating how researchers or archaeologists know it is that old. Find another source.

Regarding the Philistines, is it not even remotely possible that there was more than one civilization in that time period that were similar to the Philistines? Besides, the Bible itself only goes as far as telling where the group lived, a few of the gods they worshiped, and their conflicts with Israel. It does nothing to specifically describe them.

The ocean was not truly salty before the flood. It had only been around for about 1600 years, and it was much smaller than it is today, due to the flood. It had nowhere near the salt content of 1000 years after the flood, or especially of today's oceans
 
Back
Top Bottom