[jlisenbe]

1. Modern science can identify many catastrophic health conditions of life in the womb.

Modern science can identify many catastrophic health conditions of life post-birth. So can we continue to kill them then?

2. When it can live independently on its own. Evolved from when it's born/at birth.

So you would not allow abortions after 6 months?

The real question is when can a woman decide to terminate a pregnancy, in which 4 to 6 weeks seems reasonable to me.

Why 4 to 6 weeks? Is the baby less human at that point? What happens at six weeks that would cause you to now allow abortions after that point?



This is the baby at six weeks. Legs, arms, head, eyes, heartbeat, brainwaves, etc.

[Athos]

The same could basically be said of slavery or the rule of kings. The same could be said of the theory of evolution or of the nature of matter.

How is slavery the same as abortion? How is the rule of kings the same as abortion? Evolution? The nature of matter?

I'd still like to know why you accept some of the words of Christ but not all of them. What is the standard you are applying?

This was from another thread. I will now go and find it and answer it there. Give me a little time. In the meantime, I would like to hear your explanation of what you wrote above re abortion.

[jlisenbe]

How is slavery the same as abortion? How is the rule of kings the same as abortion? Evolution? The nature of matter?

They all represent conditions or ideas which changed the past two centuries, just like you said was true of abortion. So a change of perspective doesn't indicate falsehood like you certainly seemed to indicate was the case with abortion. Ideas change all the time. It was certainly never true, however, that abortions took place by the millions, nor were they ever as commonplace as they have become.

This was from another thread. I will now go and find it and answer it there. Give me a little time. In the meantime, I would like to hear your explanation of what you wrote above re abortion.

Yeah. Right. It was post 114 from this thread which was YESTERDAY. But I'll wait patiently as I always do for you to answer a question.

[talaniman]

1. They probably were never as public as they are today.

2. I would rather talk about the dufus ordering meat packing plants opened without enforcing guidelines to protect workers, or help for the rising virus infections in those communities. Between those plants, prisons, and nursing homes we have several hotspots while in some places they have run out of places to put the dead bodies.

[jlisenbe]

I figured it wouldn't be too long before you were back on your pet bashing project.

[Wondergirl]

1. They probably were never as public as they are today.

Nope. There were fewer people back then, and Granny Jones or Aunt Maude or the neighbor lady or anyone who "knew how" initiated abortions.

From https://www.huffpost.com/entry/the-b...tion_b_6324610

"Abortion isn’t new
Abortion has been widely used in America since its earliest days. In the 1950s, estimates of numbers of illegal, unsafe abortions ranged widely, from 200,000 to 1.2 million per year. The methods used were often ineffective and dangerous. Desperate women were driven into the back alley, where they endured danger and abuse, sometimes sexual.

Tools of the trade
Surveys in New York City in the mid-1960s revealed the variety of methods used. Treatments women took by mouth included turpentine, bleach, detergents and a range of herbal and vegetable teas. Quinine and chloroquine (malaria medicines) were ingested, and potassium permanganate was placed in the vagina, often causing chemical burns. Toxic solutions were squirted into the uterus, such as soap and turpentine, often causing kidney failure and death...Insertion of foreign bodies was common and more effective than oral agents. Objects included a coat hanger, knitting needle, bicycle spoke, ball-point pen, chicken bone and rubber catheter. Some women threw themselves off of stairs or roofs in an attempt to end a pregnancy."

From 1970-2016 there were 46,413,319 abortions reported to the CDC. (Wikipedia, Abortion Statistics). Roe vs. Wade was passed in 1973.

[Athos]

You posted earlier that the NT teaches love for God, love for others, and love for self. That is based upon a completely literal acceptance of the words of Jesus. Why is it that you accept literally the parts you like, and completely reject the notion of coming judgment which is clearly spelled out (every bit as clearly as love for God, neighbor, and self) in Matthew 25? What objective standard are you applying?[

An objective standard would presume a standard against which the Bible could be compared for its accuracy. The Bible consists of 70+ books written by almost as many authors in source languages in original books that are no longer available for comparison to apply a measurement. The result is that an objective standard does not exist. What is left is hermeneutics and exegesis.

The Catholic Church has an approach as good as any. It understands the Bible in a literal sense, a moral sense, an allegorical sense and a mystical sense. The point being - there are a number of ways to interpret the Bible.

Literalists (speaking for myself, not the Catholic Church) give the words their meaning without applying any connotations or deeper levels the words may have - in other words; strictly - according to the basic primary meaning of the words.

For example the literalist believes that a talking snake tempted Eve in the garden, that God created the world in six days, and that Noah built an ark that carried all the living creatures during a global flood so that the animals would repopulate the planet after the waters receded. These are creation myths - stories that have useful points (morals) but not to be taken literally.

To answer your question - Jesus' words of love are taken as written since they are wholly consistent with his message and with the message of both Old and New Testaments. Matthew 25 as you interpret it is wholly inconsistent with Jesus.

The conviction of the Holy Spirit is "fundamentalist jargon"? Huh. I thought it was the words of Christ. I suppose that's another NT concept you don't accept as literal

I don't think those are the exact words of Christ but I have no argument with it.

When you read a passage which agrees with your ideas and strikes you as reasonable, then you accept it as true.

This is not a bad argument. Don't you do the same thing? Doesn't everybody do the same thing? We apply our brains and reasoning power to make decisions, even of faith - especially of faith!

When you read a passage which does not agree with your ideas, well then it, etc., etc., etc.

This, of course, has been my argument against your interpretation of Bible verses which you have simply turned around and used the same argument against me. (This is a typical tactic of Trump).

Your argument boils down to, "The Bible is true". Why? "Because the Bible says it's true". I hope you see the faulty logic there.

[Athos]

They all represent conditions or ideas which changed the past two centuries, just like you said was true of abortion. So a change of perspective doesn't indicate falsehood like you certainly seemed to indicate was the case with abortion.

I NEVER indicated what you say I did. Your hostility is getting the best of you.

It was certainly never true, however, that abortions took place by the millions, nor were they ever as commonplace as they have become.

WG disagrees. How do you come by that information about abortion in the past?

Yeah. Right. It was post 114 from this thread which was YESTERDAY. But I'll wait patiently as I always do for you to answer a question.

More nastiness. I don't spend my life here, as you apparently do.

[jlisenbe]

To answer your question - Jesus' words of love are taken as written since they are wholly consistent with his message and with the message of both Old and New Testaments. Matthew 25 as you interpret it is wholly inconsistent with Jesus.

Since the Bible is, in your view, unreliable and certainly not, itself, an objective standard, then aren't you left in the position of basically guessing which statements of Christ to accept and which to reject? How would you possibly know what His message was if the NT is not reliable?

This is not a bad argument. Don't you do the same thing? Doesn't everybody do the same thing? We apply our brains and reasoning power to make decisions, even of faith - especially of faith!

You are making two arguments at once. It is one thing to suggest that we only accept the ideas of the Bible we agree with. A person who does so sets him/herself above the Bible and becomes, in effect, its judge. Now to apply our brains and powers of reason to understand the Bible is proper. It is two entirely different concepts.

But I'm glad you have finally "gone public" and admitted that you basically have no objective standard to apply to the Bible than your own personal tastes. What I find surprising is that you have no inclination to allow others to do the same.

"Abortion isn’t new
Abortion has been widely used in America since its earliest days. In the 1950s, estimates of numbers of illegal, unsafe abortions ranged widely, from 200,000 to 1.2 million per year. The methods used were often ineffective and dangerous. Desperate women were driven into the back alley, where they endured danger and abuse, sometimes sexual.

Tools of the trade
Surveys in New York City in the mid-1960s revealed the variety of methods used. Treatments women took by mouth included turpentine, bleach, detergents and a range of herbal and vegetable teas. Quinine and chloroquine (malaria medicines) were ingested, and potassium permanganate was placed in the vagina, often causing chemical burns. Toxic solutions were squirted into the uterus, such as soap and turpentine, often causing kidney failure and death...Insertion of foreign bodies was common and more effective than oral agents. Objects included a coat hanger, knitting needle, bicycle spoke, ball-point pen, chicken bone and rubber catheter. Some women threw themselves off of stairs or roofs in an attempt to end a pregnancy."

So? Tragedies happened. Women and babies died. You feel better now that only the babies die? Is that really your point???

[Wondergirl]

Since the Bible is, in your view, unreliable and certainly not, itself, an objective standard, then aren't you left in the position of basically guessing which statements of Christ to accept and which to reject? How would you possibly know what His message was if the NT is not reliable?

You have totally missed Athos' (not Athos's!) point.

So? Tragedies happened. Women and babies died. You feel better now that only the babies die? Is that really your point???

I was actually responding to your recent comment (via tal's response), "It was certainly never true, however, that abortions took place by the millions, nor were they ever as commonplace as they have become."

The statistics refute that.
"In the 1950s, estimates of numbers of illegal, unsafe abortions ranged widely, from 200,000 to 1.2 million per year.

[jlisenbe]

You have totally missed Athos' (not Athos's!) point.

Fine. Summarize it for us and tell me where I missed it specifically, but don't put the summary in quotes! I will warn you that I'm pretty sure I didn't miss it at all. And remember that you are no longer the grammar guru. 8D 8D

I was actually responding to your recent comment (via tal's response), "It was certainly never true, however, that abortions took place by the millions, nor were they ever as commonplace as they have become."

You do realize that the context was relative to centuries ago, not 1950. But even at that, I hope you understand that your estimate came from the Alan Guttmacher Institute, a research arm associated with Planned Parenthood. In fact they characterize themselves as, "a leading research and policy organization committed to advancing sexual and reproductive health and rights in the United States." So I very much doubt those figures.

You did not answer this. "You feel better now that only the babies die? Is that really your point???"

[talaniman]

Hate to break up boble scholars but we do have current events!

https://www.foxnews.com/us/michigan-...ol-guns-rifles

[Wondergirl]

Fine. Summarize it for us and tell me where I missed it specifically, but don't put the summary in quotes! I will warn you that I'm pretty sure I didn't miss it at all. And remember that you are no longer the grammar guru. 8D 8D

I'll let Athos follow up. :D

You do realize that the context was relative to centuries ago, not 1950. But even at that, I hope you understand that your estimate came from the Alan Guttmacher Institute, a research arm associated with Planned Parenthood. In fact they characterize themselves as, "a leading research and policy organization committed to advancing sexual and reproductive health and rights in the United States." So I very much doubt those figures.

They're probably higher. Remember your not knowing (or believing) how we females passed along information to each other about abortions by females we knew or heard about?

[jlisenbe]

I'll let Athos follow up. :D

Hmmm.

They're probably higher. Remember your not knowing (or believing) how we females passed along information to each other about abortions by females we knew or heard about?

So now you're appealing to anecdotal information? Hmmm again.

[Wondergirl]

So now you're appealing to anecdotal information? Hmmm again.

Our menfolk weren't interested. Apparently, they still aren't....

[paraclete]

Our menfolk weren't interested. Apparently, they still aren't....

You have heard the one about the one who cried wolf, well we heard the cry of wolf too many times and so we remain sceptical because little girls caught in the act used the excuse

[Wondergirl]

You have heard the one about the one who cried wolf, well we heard the cry of wolf too many times and so we remain skeptical

The cries by the women you wolves got pregnant on those hot dates?

[paraclete]

The cries by the women you wolves got pregnant on those hot dates?

I never got anyone pregnant on a hot date, not all of us live our life the way the americans do

[jlisenbe]

The cries by the women you wolves got pregnant on those hot dates?

You must have had some kind of really different childhood. That kind of thing, in my day, was RARE.

[Wondergirl]

You must have had some kind of really different childhood. That kind of thing, in my day, was RARE.

You have no clue. There weren't cornfields and haylofts and lake bluffs where you lived as a teen and young adult?