• 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!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

What would it take...?

Felicity said:
me or you? :confused: I am now utterly lost between Andy and anagrams....;)


...I know I was being a tad facetious...

I meant I was being facetious in my post, course you were too.
 
Felicity said:
What would it take for me to consider abortion morally acceptable? It would take any and all of the following:

#1 Proof that God doesn't exist

#2 My own death and God telling me to my face--"Yo' what's the big deal? You got it all wrong--I gave you free will so you could be a self-obsessed little twit with a freaky-live sex life of irresponsible hedonism and meaninglessness, not because I wanted you to be able to freely choose to love me and follow my commandments--Duh....:roll: "

#3 A lobotomy

#4 An alternate universe where evil is good and good is evil

#5 An army of zygote/embryo/fetus' armed to the umbilicus with weapons of mass destruction threatening world domination and subjugation


So.....
What would it take for you to change your mind on the abortion issue?:mrgreen:

Since my stance on this issue is not based in any way on Dogma, it would only require one small thing to change my mind:

I would just have to lose respect for all women, and decide I should be in charge of everyone elses life....hmmm....King of the world, sounds fun.
 
tecoyah said:
Sorry Shooter...But, it would seem the burden of proof would fall in your lap on this one, as defined by the very question you ask. "Thou Shalt Not Kill" , as with virtually all aspects of scripture, is subject to interpretation by the individual.Thus, should you wish to extrapolate the definition of said statement to include a fetus.....you will need to provide the proof of "Gods Intent".

Good luck in that.....You will need it, as the very nature of Biblical scripture defies any logical attempt to be accepted as Fact in the eyes of physical reality. One can make all the claims they wish that they "Know Gods Will", but in the end......I ask you a simple question:

How do you prove to me , what I hear from "God", is wrong?

*The above is a rhetorical question*
I never discuss abortion on the basis of religion, but since you ask a question which relates to religion it can be answered only with a reference to religion.

Irrespective of what you hear, there is an excerpt from a page in the Catechism of the Catholic Church that reads as follows:

Abortion​
2270 Human life must be respected and protected absolutely from the moment of conception. From the first moment of his existence, a human being must be recognized as having the rights of a person - among which is the inviolable right of every innocent being to life.71

"Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, and before you were born I consecrated you."72

"My frame was not hidden from you, when I was being made in secret, intricately wrought in the depths of the earth."73

2271 Since the first century the Church has affirmed the moral evil of every procured abortion. This teaching has not changed and remains unchangeable. Direct abortion, that is to say, abortion willed either as an end or a means, is gravely contrary to the moral law:

You shall not kill the embryo by abortion and shall not cause the newborn to perish.74

God, the Lord of life, has entrusted to men the noble mission of safeguarding life, and men must carry it out in a manner worthy of themselves. Life must be protected with the utmost care from the moment of conception: abortion and infanticide are abominable crimes.75

2272 Formal cooperation in an abortion constitutes a grave offense. The Church attaches the canonical penalty of excommunication to this crime against human life. "A person who procures a completed abortion incurs excommunication latae sententiae,"76 "by the very commission of the offense,"77 and subject to the conditions provided by Canon Law.78 The Church does not thereby intend to restrict the scope of mercy. Rather, she makes clear the gravity of the crime committed, the irreparable harm done to the innocent who is put to death, as well as to the parents and the whole of society.

2273 The inalienable right to life of every innocent human individual is a constitutive element of a civil society and its legislation:

"The inalienable rights of the person must be recognized and respected by civil society and the political authority. These human rights depend neither on single individuals nor on parents; nor do they represent a concession made by society and the state; they belong to human nature and are inherent in the person by virtue of the creative act from which the person took his origin. Among such fundamental rights one should mention in this regard every human being's right to life and physical integrity from the moment of conception until death."79

"The moment a positive law deprives a category of human beings of the protection which civil legislation ought to accord them, the state is denying the equality of all before the law. When the state does not place its power at the service of the rights of each citizen, and in particular of the more vulnerable, the very foundations of a state based on law are undermined. . . . As a consequence of the respect and protection which must be ensured for the unborn child from the moment of conception, the law must provide appropriate penal sanctions for every deliberate violation of the child's rights."80

2274 Since it must be treated from conception as a person, the embryo must be defended in its integrity, cared for, and healed, as far as possible, like any other human being.

Prenatal diagnosis is morally licit, "if it respects the life and integrity of the embryo and the human fetus and is directed toward its safe guarding or healing as an individual. . . . It is gravely opposed to the moral law when this is done with the thought of possibly inducing an abortion, depending upon the results: a diagnosis must not be the equivalent of a death sentence."81
 
tryreading said:
I may have to abondon this thread due to the profanity. What's next Fantasea? Will it be dork? Or worse, putz? I'm sure the Yiddish have already left.
Congratulations! You're the first one to ring in after having solved the anagram. :applaud

These discussions about death are morbid and need to be lightened up periodically. Stick around and have fun. If, however, you really must leave, go in peace.


PS Before you go, why not review some of that guy's posts and screen them for intentionally nasty words, accusations, and insults. To this point, you seem not to have spotted a single one out of the hundreds written. You don't happen to be one-sided, do you?

Nah, you couldn't be, could you? That simply wouldn't be politically correct.

:2rofll: ...:monkey... :2dance:​
 
Last edited:
Fantasea said:
I never discuss abortion on the basis of religion, but since you ask a question which relates to religion it can be answered only with a reference to religion.

Irrespective of what you hear, there is an excerpt from a page in the Catechism of the Catholic Church that reads as follows:

Actually....you failed to understand the question.....as it was not one of religion, Rather of "God".

The two are not interchangable


Why would I find the answer in a Catholic ritual (which by the way, I am far too familiar with), if I want to understand the God of my mind.
 
tecoyah said:
Actually....you failed to understand the question.....as it was not one of religion, Rather of "God".

The two are not interchangable


Why would I find the answer in a Catholic ritual (which by the way, I am far too familiar with), if I want to understand the God of my mind.
These were your words:

"the very nature of Biblical scripture defies any logical attempt to be accepted as Fact in the eyes of physical reality. One can make all the claims they wish that they "Know Gods Will", but in the end......I ask you a simple question:

How do you prove to me , what I hear from "God", is wrong?"


You are free to do and think as you wish. The material furnished was intended to give you some insight into a world with which you seemed to have no familiarity so that you would see how the other half lives, so to speak.

It is not a ritual, but a doctrinal teaching on a particular subject.

However, your use of the words, "I am far too familiar with", with a seemingly pejorative connotation, would appear to be the self-identification of one who "jumped ship". If that is, indeed, the case, then it makes it easier for one to understand your attitude on the question.

If I am mistaken, then I regret what I have written.
 
Certainly do not regret the reply, it was honest and heartfelt. Indeed I did "Jump Ship" quite a while ago, but I very much enjoy the rituals (yes they are rituals, as stated by the priests who taught me), and find some solace in the wonders of Catholisism. This does not mean I must limit my understanding of the "God" to what was written long ago, that would be rather silly.
But, back to my question:

"How do you prove to me , what I hear from "God", is wrong?"

My point in reply was that a return to Catholic doctrine does nothing to disprove what I understand God to be.....and to be honest it was a rhetorical question in the first place, if only because I know the answer....which is, You Can't....Nobody can.

Just as I cannot prove your understanding is incorrect, and would not want to.
 
Fantasea said:
The genesis is a well established biological fact,
No, you are again lying, claiming biological "fact" for your own personal opinion.
The well established biological fact is that the combining of sperm and the egg create a new, distinct, unique human life,
Only marginally correct when dealing with biological facts.
separate from that of the mother,
Only marginally correct when dealing with biological facts.
which, unless interrupted by a natural or deliberate event, will grow and develop seamlessly.
But only through mining the rersources for such growth from the woman's body.
In the fullness of time, the unborn child
Incorrect. When talking about biological "facts," there is no such thing as an "unborn child." The deceptive vocabulary you chose to utilize makes you a lliar. AGAIN.
announces its readiness to leave the womb, does so, and takes its rightful place among us.
Another lie, as this is not a "biological fact." You just lie ALL THE TIME, OBVIOUSLY!
The opinion is based ....
Really? Opinion? SO you lied when you claimed biological fact? Why didn't you then just not lie about science to begin with?
They stand biological fact on its head and introduce a "test" for personhood.
ANOTHER LIE, as personhood is not a biological construct. Geen you sure are lying A LOT today.
Biologically, the unborn child,
MORE LIES, as there is no such BIOLOGICAL entity as an "unborn child" Your revisionist linguistic hyperbole merely shows you as a liar.
being a separate and distinct human person,
More lies, as biological science in no way establishes this.
MUST YOU LIE ALL THE TIME?
Are you really THAT MUCH of a pathological liar?
is by no stretch of the imagination a parasite.
BIOLOGICALLY, it functions just like a parasite does. SO what was your claim again? Were you lying again? :shock: AGAIN!
Just keep in mind what you wrote, " "Biological facts do not answer ethical questions. The ethical answers are derived from facts and can be interpreted by the individual user."
And keep in mind that LYING about the facts like you do all the time doesn't make your lies into "facts."
Facts are in and "fluid" ethical answers are out.
Great, so you are going to stop lying about facts? Well, that's about #%@#@$^%$@^% #@ time.
 
Fantasea said:
Irrespective of what you hear, there is an excerpt from a page in the Catechism of the Catholic Church that reads as follows:

Abortion​
...
And why should we care one bit?
 
Fantasea said:
Forgive me for not addressing you directly. It seems there is a defect in my keyboard. Everytime I type in this sequence of letters, s,t,e,e,n, what appears on my screen is the letter sequence, s,c,h,m,u,c,k. Not wishing to appear loud-mouthed, loutish, lowbred, obscene, raunchy, rude, smutty, tacky, tactless, uncouth, crude, crass, or insensitive, I simply hit the delete key so as not to offend you.

I have a call into the "GEEK SQUAD". When a technician arrives, I trust he'll be able to remedy the situation. I hope I won't have to spring for a new keyboard. This one is comfortably broken-in. My middle fingers know exactly how to respond; "k" "i" "8" "," and "d" "e" "3" "c" or shift "K" "I" "*" "<" and "D" "E" "#" "C".

If you look carefully, you will discover within the letters an excellent anagramic alternative to "steen". Once in lower case; once in upper case.

In the meantime, see post #100 in the "Continuation" thread. It responds to the nonsense you posted above.

[Moderator mode]

Let's keep the personal attacks out of the discussion, K?

We have a place on this Forum called "The Basement" if you would like to continue in this manner....

But up here, keep it on the "up & up"...

[/Moderator mode]
 
Fantasea said:
Congratulations! You're the first one to ring in after having solved the anagram. :applaud

These discussions about death are morbid and need to be lightened up periodically. Stick around and have fun. If, however, you really must leave, go in peace.


PS Before you go, why not review some of that guy's posts and screen them for intentionally nasty words, accusations, and insults. To this point, you seem not to have spotted a single one out of the hundreds written. You don't happen to be one-sided, do you?

Nah, you couldn't be, could you? That simply wouldn't be politically correct.

:2rofll: ...:monkey... :2dance:​

I am not one sided. My time is very important to me. I will read no essays, lectures, treatises, speeches, or much of anything on this website longer than about three paragraphs. Very little profound thought is expressed here, including by me. I am done.
 
tryreading said:
Very little profound thought is expressed here, including by me. I am done.
Hey..you leaving? I didn't get a chance to prove I'm at least as consistant as shooter!;)
 
Felicity said:
Hey..you leaving? I didn't get a chance to prove I'm at least as consistant as shooter!;)

I'm not going anywhere, thought you had disappeared. Now, you can dream, but nobody is as consistent as shooter.
 
tecoyah said:
Certainly do not regret the reply, it was honest and heartfelt. Indeed I did "Jump Ship" quite a while ago, but I very much enjoy the rituals (yes they are rituals, as stated by the priests who taught me), and find some solace in the wonders of Catholisism. This does not mean I must limit my understanding of the "God" to what was written long ago, that would be rather silly.
But, back to my question:

"How do you prove to me , what I hear from "God", is wrong?"

My point in reply was that a return to Catholic doctrine does nothing to disprove what I understand God to be.....and to be honest it was a rhetorical question in the first place, if only because I know the answer....which is, You Can't....Nobody can.

Just as I cannot prove your understanding is incorrect, and would not want to.
The reasons I never discuss abortion on the basis of religion are twofold.

First, any, and I mean any question which is discussed on the basis of religion is never resolved. Regardless of how it starts out, a civil discussion quickly moves from the merit of the question into a battle about religious differences.

Second, the question of abortion is easily discussed on the basis of irrefutable biological fact. The only support for abortion is philosophical or emotional opinion which has no basis in fact.

However, in my discussion of abortion, I am buoyed by the knowledge that in addition to experts in the secular fields of obstetrics, embryology, fetology, genetics, and other sciences, upon whom I may rely, I also have learned theologians as spiritual backup cheering me on.

You may find God any way that suits you. I prefer to utilize the roadmap drawn by folks far more knowledgeable on the subject than I.
 
cnredd said:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fantasea
Forgive me for not addressing you directly. It seems there is a defect in my keyboard. Everytime I type in this sequence of letters, s,t,e,e,n, what appears on my screen is the letter sequence, s,c,h,m,u,c,k. Not wishing to appear loud-mouthed, loutish, lowbred, obscene, raunchy, rude, smutty, tacky, tactless, uncouth, crude, crass, or insensitive, I simply hit the delete key so as not to offend you.

I have a call into the "GEEK SQUAD". When a technician arrives, I trust he'll be able to remedy the situation. I hope I won't have to spring for a new keyboard. This one is comfortably broken-in. My middle fingers know exactly how to respond; "k" "i" "8" "," and "d" "e" "3" "c" or shift "K" "I" "*" "<" and "D" "E" "#" "C".

If you look carefully, you will discover within the letters an excellent anagramic alternative to "steen". Once in lower case; once in upper case.

In the meantime, see post #100 in the "Continuation" thread. It responds to the nonsense you posted above.
[Moderator mode]

Let's keep the personal attacks out of the discussion, K?

We have a place on this Forum called "The Basement" if you would like to continue in this manner....

But up here, keep it on the "up & up"...

[/Moderator mode]

Please accept my apology for having obviously awakened you from a deep and lengthy slumber which precluded your noticing, analyzing, and responding in kind with a similar admonishment to, about a hundred mean, nasty, insulting, goading, and otherwise obnoxious posts which prompted my humorous barb.

I now wish you pleasant dreams as you return to your state of dormancy, however, before you doze off, would you have time to take a quick peek at post #33 in this thread?
 
Felicity said:
Hey..you leaving? I didn't get a chance to prove I'm at least as consistant as shooter!;)

I was responding to Fantasea who was doing a little light name-calling, and she joked I wasn't calling out her nemesis on his barbs. His posts are usually too long to read, though, so I skip a lot of them. Don't get me wrong, I read Les Miserables recently, a very long book, but it was Les Miserables. The ramblings here should be a little shorter (and less self-important). In fairness, some of Fantasea's posts are way too long, too.
 
steen said:
And why should we care one bit?
Care; don't care; do as you please. The post was intended to illiminate a particular point for a certain individual. If it is not of interest to you, why do you bother waste your time and effort to read and comment upon it?
 
tryreading said:
I was responding to Fantasea who was doing a little light name-calling, and she joked I wasn't calling out her nemesis on his barbs. His posts are usually too long to read, though, so I skip a lot of them. Don't get me wrong, I read Les Miserables recently, a very long book, but it was Les Miserables. The ramblings here should be a little shorter (and less self-important). In fairness, some of Fantasea's posts are way too long, too.
I am confused by the dichotomy between your screen name and your unwillingness to read posts.

Are you acquainted with Evelyn Wood? If not, perhaps you should look her up.
 
Fantasea said:
I am confused by the dichotomy between your screen name and your unwillingness to read posts.

Are you acquainted with Evelyn Wood? If not, perhaps you should look her up.

Evelyn Wood. You're showing your age, young lady.

Di..kah..toe..mee

I read posts! But some people restate the same, exact phrases over and over and I lose interest after reading the same thing after, oh, 18 times.

Would you cast the first stone at me? (I'm cringing).
 
Fantasea said:
The reasons I never discuss abortion on the basis of religion are twofold.

First, any, and I mean any question which is discussed on the basis of religion is never resolved. Regardless of how it starts out, a civil discussion quickly moves from the merit of the question into a battle about religious differences.

Second, the question of abortion is easily discussed on the basis of irrefutable biological fact. The only support for abortion is philosophical or emotional opinion which has no basis in fact.

However, in my discussion of abortion, I am buoyed by the knowledge that in addition to experts in the secular fields of obstetrics, embryology, fetology, genetics, and other sciences, upon whom I may rely, I also have learned theologians as spiritual backup cheering me on.

You may find God any way that suits you. I prefer to utilize the roadmap drawn by folks far more knowledgeable on the subject than I.

And everything you have quoted or represented here is from sites that support YOUR OWN view and none from totally unbiased scientific sources, nor do you provide links to back up your claims, included that preposterous one about the increase of psychological counsel for women who have undergone the procedure. The few links you have provided-and they HAVE been very few-have ALL been from anti-rights groups.
You have also stated you 'hear the screams' of aborted fetuses...well, they don't scream so you either very delusional or failed at making your point.
Being careful of your essaying and spelling doesn't make your claims any more factual. Until you back up what you claim with UNBIASED printed facts and not doublespeak from an anti-rights site or off the top of your head or the doctrines in a religious handbook, you aren't making much of a case for your position.
It's one thing to say you are for or against the reproductive rights of women. It's another to say you have justification for those feelings by presenting biased stories and twisted logic, then when it's disproven or corrected, you either twist it more, deny or ignore it completely.
 
ngdawg said:
And everything you have quoted or represented here is from sites that support YOUR OWN view and none from totally unbiased scientific sources, nor do you provide links to back up your claims, included that preposterous one about the increase of psychological counsel for women who have undergone the procedure. The few links you have provided-and they HAVE been very few-have ALL been from anti-rights groups.
Honestly, would you expect to find any pro-life material on a pro-death website?
You have also stated you 'hear the screams' of aborted fetuses...well, they don't scream so you either very delusional or failed at making your point.
Maybe yes; maybe no. Perhaps you can decide for yourself.
Being careful of your essaying and spelling doesn't make your claims any more factual. Until you back up what you claim with UNBIASED printed facts and not doublespeak from an anti-rights site or off the top of your head or the doctrines in a religious handbook, you aren't making much of a case for your position.
It's one thing to say you are for or against the reproductive rights of women. It's another to say you have justification for those feelings by presenting biased stories and twisted logic, then when it's disproven or corrected, you either twist it more, deny or ignore it completely.
My contention is simply this. The living unborn human child in the womb has an inalienable right to live and through the medium of a judicial finding which convolutedly opined that the unborn child in the womb may not be living and is a non-person, it's mother has the right to kill it.

In the matter of biased stories and twisted logic, I give you sworn testimony:

"WHEN DOES LIFE BEGIN?"​

On April 23-24, 1981, a Senate Judiciary Subcommittee held hearings on this very question? Appearing to speak on behalf of the scientific community was a group of internationally-known geneticists and biologists who all affirmed that human life begins at conception - and they told their story with a profound absence of opposing testimony.

Dr. Micheline M. Mathews-Roth, Harvard medical School, gave confirming testimony, supported by references from over 20 embryology and other medical textbooks that human life began at conception.

Dr. McCarthy de Mere, medical doctor and law professor, University of Tennessee, testified: "The exact moment of the beginning of personhood and of the human body is at the moment of conception."

Dr. Hymie Gordon, Chairman, Department of Genetics at the Mayo Clinic, added: "By all the criteria of modern molecular biology, life is present from the moment of conception."

"Father of Modern Genetics" Dr. Jerome Lejeune told the lawmakers: "To accept the fact that after fertilization has taken place a new human has come into being is no longer a matter of taste or opinion ... it is plain experimental evidence."

Dr. Alfred Bongiovanni, University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine, concluded, "I am no more prepared to say that these early stages represent an incomplete human being than I would be to say that the child prior to the dramatic effects of puberty ... is not a human being."

Dr. Landrum Shettles, sometimes called the "Father of In Vitro Fertilization" notes, "Conception confers life and makes that life one of a kind.”


It is interesting to note there was no opposing sworn testimony. Could that be because of the fear of perjury?

In any event, how do you counter this testimony?

In the matter of the silent scream, if you have a strong stomach, check it out. See if you hear what I hear.

 
tryreading said:
Would you cast the first stone at me? (I'm cringing).
Only if you wear leather and beg real hard. (I just adore cringing.)


:eek:... :party ...:naughty​
 
tryreading said:
I'm not going anywhere, thought you had disappeared. .
Nope...I'm around...just doesn't seem there is anything pertinent to add....

Now, you can dream, but nobody is as consistent as shooter

:lol: He's good, alright... although I'm less inclined to knock off even deserving criminals. I think capital punishment is justifiable, but rarely necessary.
 
Fantasea said:
I agree wholeheartedly with this statement.
Herein lies the crux.

The genesis is a well established biological fact, which is then bent, twisted, distorted, and otherwise tortured in an attempt to reshape it to conform to the requirements necessary to validate an opinion which has no otherwise factual underpinnings.

The well established biological fact is that the combining of sperm and the egg create a new, distinct, unique human life, separate from that of the mother, which, unless interrupted by a natural or deliberate event, will grow and develop seamlessly. In the fullness of time, the unborn child announces its readiness to leave the womb, does so, and takes its rightful place among us.
Right. We agree to this point. That's all fact.

Fantasea said:
One who does not differentiate between humans, animals, and fowl might, indeed, engage in such extrapolation, as might one who is addle pated. Great idea. Facts only. Just keep in mind what you wrote, " "Biological facts do not answer ethical questions. The ethical answers are derived from facts and can be interpreted by the individual user."

Facts are in and "fluid" ethical answers are out.
Therein lies the problem and where opinion and personal feelings come in to play. Since we're arguing solely facts and not feelings, there should be no delineation in what value one life has over another. It's a very cold, hard look at life. One could take the facts and use them to rationalize a war in Iraq, abortion, or eating a hamburger or, at the same time, using other facts to be a vegan hippy eating only raw foods and becoming a vessel of life to 20 offspring.

I think we both know that basing these arguments on life and death should be more than just cold, hard facts. Making an argument for or against abortion based solely on facts doesn't answer the bigger questions.
 
Fantasea said:
Only if you wear leather and beg real hard. (I just adore cringing.)


:eek:... :party ...:naughty​

!!! Hey, baby. Let's take this to an empty thread. L'il sum'm sum'm.
 
Back
Top Bottom