• 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!

When public health runs into the politics of reproduction.

Your anecdotal evidence is meaningless. Facts remain and countless children not fetuses are left at the whims of selfish ignorant people who can only see as far as their nose extends.

Good for you now stop speaking for others.

I am not trying to take care of you, I really do not give a crap, but I do wish to make real and meaningful opportunity available to those who otherwise would be deprived of it. Now go back to your ignorant talking points about socialists since that is all you can muster while clearly not even understanding the word.

Actually I am not but you are that of others.

Life is challenging. Yes it is. We aren't here to live luxurious lives without consequence. That just isn't the deal.
Struggle, pain, and other consequences of life can lead to the better more enjoyable experiences in life. We rarely get exactly what we want, and wither we know it or not, that is a good thing.
Stop trying to take consequences away from people. You are hampering their experiential maturity.
 
You do a pretty good job of laying things out in your papers, but the flaws are fundamental.
GENERIC UNSUPPORTED DENUNCIATION --worthless blather, therefore.

I am a bit busy now, but I might, when I have some time, point some things out.
I ONLY ASKED FOR ONE FLAW, and you didn't even present that much. Why should I (or sangha, who might simply be trying to goad you) think you could possibly point out more than one flaw?
 
GENERIC UNSUPPORTED DENUNCIATION --worthless blather, therefore.
I ONLY ASKED FOR ONE FLAW, and you didn't even present that much. Why should I (or sangha, who might simply be trying to goad you) think you could possibly point out more than one flaw?

OK. I don't see that you searched scripture for information about Gods nature. You don't appear to support that either way.
Your argument is as a man having an opinion about Gods nature, based on observation of the created. You are analyzing God based on your meager understanding of His creation.
You seem to be concerned that God might get bored if he really were all-knowing and infinitely powerful. You don't seem to realize that this is coming from a human perspective.

By your liberal use of the word idiot there is a strong indication that you think highly of yourself. God tells us clearly how he feels about this type of attitude.
It is not the love of Christ that leads us down this path.

Wanting to be gods ourselves is the very evil that sanctions abortion in the first place. Setting ourselves in Gods seat and making decisions we ought not make....
 
Life is challenging.
And you came up with that all by yourself. Is that why you wish to make it as challenging as possible for everyone else?

We aren't here to live luxurious lives without consequence.
How put you in charge to make that determination? Clearly you are the type that considers health and education a luxury.

That just isn't the deal.
Not your deal but again, stop speaking for others.

Stop trying to take consequences away from people.
You are the one trying to take opportunity away from others.
 
And you came up with that all by yourself. Is that why you wish to make it as challenging as possible for everyone else?
How put you in charge to make that determination? Clearly you are the type that considers health and education a luxury.
Not your deal but again, stop speaking for others.
You are the one trying to take opportunity away from others.

God is in charge. That's all.
 
OK. I don't see that you searched scripture for information about Gods nature.
I QUIT READING THE BIBLE AFTER REACHING DEUTERONOMY 17:9-12, which clearly reveals the true purpose of the Bible, and has nothing to do with God. Remember, not even Religions claim God literally sat down somewhere and wrote the Bible. Humans wrote it, and humans are well-known to tell lies for their own benefit. Therefore, why should any Biblical claims about God be believed?

You don't appear to support that either way.
SEE ABOVE. I'm not unwilling to accept the notion God might exist, because all by itself, that is not incompatible with known data about the Physical Universe. But keep in mind a classic saying, "All gods have feet of clay", which basically means that humans have rarely if ever imagined a God that was truly superior to humans. Even the Old Testament declares the Biblical God to be "jealous", which is a human failing! How does that square with claims that "God is perfect"? LOGICALLY, it simply cannot. Since my personal core belief starts with the notion that "Everything that is True makes logical sense", it follows that mutually-inconsistent claims about God cannot all be true.

Your argument is as a man having an opinion about Gods nature, based on observation of the created.
ACTUALLY, NO. For God to be a logically consistent believable entity, three Biblical claims about God can be sensible. God is superhumanly Smart; God is superhumanly Knowledgeable, and God is superhumanly Loving. I'm not sure that any other characteristics are necessary ("Powerful"? Ah, but Knowledge is Power!).

You are analyzing God based on your meager understanding of His creation.
I KNOW MORE THAN YOU THINK.

You seem to be concerned that God might get bored if he really were all-knowing and infinitely powerful.
FORTUNATELY, IT IS MATHEMATICALLY IMPOSSIBLE TO BE ALL-KNOWING. To see why, combine Cantor's "transfinity" with Gödel's Proof of Incompleteness. No matter how-infinitely-much God knows, there will always be infinitely more that can be learned. (Ordinary "infinity" is the smallest type of "transfinity"....)

Before you get in a huff about mathematics and God, keep in mind that mathematics is abstract, not "concrete". Not even God can take the abstract concept of "one", and add it to itself, and get anything other than the abstract concept of "two". Concrete objects (like loaves and fishes) are another matter entirely. Mathematical proofs are totally independent of any process that can generate a mathematical proof, entirely because they are abstract, and that includes independence from God. In cruder terms, 1+1=2 regardless of whether or not God exists. And therefore it really is impossible for any entity, including God, to know absolutely everything that is possible to know, thanks to transfinity and Gödel's Proof.

You don't seem to realize that this is coming from a human perspective.
IT IS A FACT THAT THE FOUNDATIONS OF THE UNIVERSE INCLUDE TOTAL RANDOMNESS (in Quantum Mechanics). If you want to claim God Created the Universe, then you might ask "why include randomness?" And do note that it is a Fact that randomness=unpredictable....

By your liberal use of the word idiot there is a strong indication that you think highly of yourself.
IRRELEVANT. I'm liberally defining "idiot" as one who claims God has certain characteristics, and also claims God acts inconsistently with those characteristics.

Wanting to be gods ourselves
THEY SAY HUMAN SOULS ARE GOD'S CHILDREN. Guess what children Naturally grow up to become?

is the very evil that sanctions abortion in the first place.
FALSE, simply because unborn humans are soulless animals, potential vehicles --vehicles under construction, that is-- for souls. Humans are smart enough to not install a "driver" into a vehicle before the vehicle is ready to be driven. And God is supposed to be smarter than humans....

Setting ourselves in Gods seat and making decisions we ought not make....
YOUR MERE CLAIMS ARE WORTHLESS WITHOUT EVIDENCE. First is the claim we set ourselves in God's seat, and second is the claim of making decisions we ought not make. You cannot support either claim with evidence.
 
Yes, I've read it.
GOOD. The world has a lot of competing paradigms about God and souls. Every Religion claims that the believers of other Religions have misplaced their faith. But none of them can prove it is the One True Religion, so why should any of them be believed?

If you read The Cuticle Cell Argument, then that means you should be aware of how both "twinning" and "chimerism" happen. The first starts with a single conception event, and leads to multiple separate human bodies. The second starts with two conception events, yielding two separate living entities, and leads to a single human body, even though neither of the original entities dies during the chimerism process. Therefore, if a human soul is associated with a conception event, then, about four days after conception, (A) where do the extra souls come from, when twinning happens, and (B), where does one soul go, when chimerism happens?

The Fact Is, the notion that souls are associated with conception is a notion that ultimately stems from an ancient hypothesis called "vitalism", which has been proved false. Living things have no more "life force" than a fuel-powered toy (such as a model airplane). Scientists know that anything that can begin to exist as a consequence of some purely physical event (like the biological merging of sperm and egg), can also be destroyed by some other purely physical event. It is Logically Impossible for a new-formed zygote to have an immortal soul, something that is immune to physical events like twinning and chimerism. Only a non-physical event (like an Act of God) can cause something to exist that is immune to the phenomena of the Physical Universe.

THEREFORE, when a zygote begins to exist, it does not have a soul. It might be given one at any time afterward, BUT....
God knows that about 2/3 of all new-formed zygotes will fail to yield live births. God can probably read the DNA and know at a glance which zygotes are doomed to fail.
"In the end, only souls matter". That is a rather common claim of many Religions; it might even be true. But if it is....
God Loves the fully-ensouled pregnant woman. She has a soul, while the unborn human doesn't, unless God gives it one.
God Knows the exact probability that a pregnant woman might choose to abort her pregnancy.
God Smartly is aware of the Facts and Logic that if killing an ensouled entity is "murder", then abortion can be "murder" only if the unborn human has a God-given soul.
God Smartly Knows Love is not expressed by giving an unborn human a soul, while aware that the woman would abort, and thereby making her condemnable for murder.
 
Last edited:
Here's another opportunity for the so-called "pro-lifers" to demonstrate their belief in the sanctity of life by ignoring human suffering

pro lifers are people too,they are not someone to hate,they like you believe they are right,how about the so called anti life faction of the democratic socialist party.
abortion has no place in the voting booth,the state needs to butt out unless it is for the life of the mother exc.


run don run
 
GOOD. The world has a lot of competing paradigms about God and souls. Every Religion claims that the believers of other Religions have misplaced their faith. But none of them can prove it is the One True Religion, so why should any of them be believed?

If you read The Cuticle Cell Argument, then that means you should be aware of how both "twinning" and "chimerism" happen. The first starts with a single conception event, and leads to multiple separate human bodies. The second starts with two conception events, yielding two separate living entities, and leads to a single human body, even though neither of the original entities dies during the chimerism process. Therefore, if a human soul is associated with a conception event, then, about four days after conception, (A) where do the extra souls come from, when twinning happens, and (B), where does one soul go, when chimerism happens?

The Fact Is, the notion that souls are associated with conception is a notion that ultimately stems from an ancient hypothesis called "vitalism", which has been proved false. Living things have no more "life force" than a fuel-powered toy (such as a model airplane). Scientists know that anything that can begin to exist as a consequence of some purely physical event (like the biological merging of sperm and egg), can also be destroyed by some other purely physical event. It is Logically Impossible for a new-formed zygote to have an immortal soul, something that is immune to physical events like twinning and chimerism. Only a non-physical event (like an Act of God) can cause something to exist that is immune to the phenomena of the Physical Universe.

THEREFORE, when a zygote begins to exist, it does not have a soul. It might be given one at any time afterward, BUT....
God knows that about 2/3 of all new-formed zygotes will fail to yield live births. God can probably read the DNA and know at a glance which zygotes are doomed to fail.
"In the end, only souls matter". That is a rather common claim of many Religions; it might even be true. But if it is....
God Loves the fully-ensouled pregnant woman. She has a soul, while the unborn human doesn't, unless God gives it one.
God Knows the exact probability that a pregnant woman might choose to abort her pregnancy.
God Smartly is aware of the Facts and Logic that if killing an ensouled entity is "murder", then abortion can be "murder" only if the unborn human has a God-given soul.
God Smartly Knows Love is not expressed by giving an unborn human a soul, while aware that the woman would abort, and thereby making her condemnable for murder.

“Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, and before you were born I consecrated you; I appointed you a prophet to the nations.”
 
GOOD. The world has a lot of competing paradigms about God and souls. Every Religion claims that the believers of other Religions have misplaced their faith. But none of them can prove it is the One True Religion, so why should any of them be believed?....

Christ. He knows. Or he is a liar. I believe he knows. He doesn't know religion, he knows God.
 
“Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, and before you were born I consecrated you; I appointed you a prophet to the nations.”
SO? That seems to be saying at least one soul existed before its body existed --but it still doesn't say when a soul becomes associated with a body --and it certainly doesn't say the soul began to exist when ovum-fertilization happened. If you ever heard about "reincarnation" philosophy, then that verse is entirely consistent with it (proponents of that philosophy say souls associate at birth, or shortly after birth).

Perhaps you should keep in mind that because "vitalism" has been proved to be a false notion, that means plenty of things don't need souls in order to survive. A bacterium, for example, is basically just a fuel-seeking machine, only comprised of organic materials instead of inorganic materials. An amoeba or a paramecium is a more-complex biological machine --they are "eukaryote" organisms, while ordinary bacteria are "prokaryote" organisms. It just so happens that in just about every multi-celled life-form on the planet, from worms to trees to grass to birds to humans, the primary cells of that organism are eukaryote cells. The zygote is a eukaryote cell. It does not need a soul in order to survive. Meanwhile, by definition of being immortal, souls don't need bodies to survive.

I'm not the only one who has described the human body as a vehicle for a soul --but I might be the first to point out the Known Fact about human vehicles, that human drivers don't get installed until the vehicles are ready to be driven. So, on what basis should a soul get involved with a human body before that body is ready to be "driven"? Even if they do it before birth, about the time of "viability" (roughly 22-24 weeks), that means most abortions are entirely "in the clear" of affecting souls, because most abortions are usually done around the 12th week of a pregnancy. You DO understand, don't you, that an immortal soul can afford to wait for a developing unborn human body to be wanted by its mother?
 
Christ. He knows. Or he is a liar. I believe he knows. He doesn't know religion, he knows God.
FINE. But so far as I'm aware, Christ didn't say anything against abortion. He did supposedly tell someone "You shall be born again", which kind-of sounds like reincarnation philosophy, except we all know Christianity chooses to interpret those words as meaning something else.
 
“Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, and before you were born I consecrated you; I appointed you a prophet to the nations.”


God was talking about one soul before birth. God was talking to/about his prophet [Jeremiah].

In that verse God was speaking to Jeremiah whom he appointed a prophet to the nations.

That passage is specific to one, very special person—Jeremiah the prophet.
He was not speaking about all fertilized eggs.

From the Bible:

4Now the word of the LORD came to me saying, 5"Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, And before you were born I consecrated you; I have appointed you a prophet to the nations." 6Then I said, "Alas, Lord GOD! Behold, I do not know how to speak, Because I am a youth."…

Later Jeremiah cursed the day he was born saying...

"Cursed be the day on which I was born! The day when my mother bore me, let it not be blessed! Cursed be the man who brought the news to my father, 'A son is born to you', making him very glad. Let that man be like the cities which the Lord overthrew without pity; let him hear a cry in the morning and an alarm at noon, because he did not kill me in the womb; so my mother would have been my grave, and her womb for ever great." (Jeremiah 20:14-17)
 
Last edited:
FINE. But so far as I'm aware, Christ didn't say anything against abortion. He did supposedly tell someone "You shall be born again", which kind-of sounds like reincarnation philosophy, except we all know Christianity chooses to interpret those words as meaning something else.

Christ made it incredibly easy for us, and also incredibly hard based on our nature (we want to be our own god). "Then Jesus told his disciples, “If anyone would come after me, let him deny himself and take up his cross and follow me."
When you think on this, and on the motives for abortion, you will see that he was not a pro-choice advocate.
So you must choose Christ, or deny Him. It's that simple. ...or difficult.
 
Back
Top Bottom