Choice

[foxpaws]

Nowhere in that verse does it say that that is the start of 'life.' Sorry, you fail.

Fox, you're clever but you have no wisdom. You find verses with words in them but you have no idea what they mean. Seriously, you're using Adam's creation from dust as proof that abortion is endorsed by God? How was Adam supposed to have been born other than by God breathing life into him? And your other best example is a vision where God showed Ezekiel a valley of bones and where Elijah revives a dead child? How does any of this show that life begins AT birth? Tsk tsk, fox, context! Man you're ignorant. What's next, the resurrection of Jesus Christ is proof that God is pro-abortion? :bowrofl:

And you should learn to read foss - those passages show where life begins - not that abortion is endorsed by God. I don't believe abortion is endorsed by God, however I am sensible enough not to try to foist my beliefs onto someone else.

You should really read that passage in Exodus more carefully. Thanks for admitting that there is a penalty for killing a baby. You make my point for me.

There is a severe penalty for killing a baby - not a severe penalty for ending a pregnancy, those penalties in the bible are rather weak, and monetary.

You cannot justify abortion on demand with any of those verses. And I've already furnished a link that refutes all of your 'interpretations.' I'm not going to explain the whole Bible to you. Bottom line is you CANNOT demonstrate that God is pro-abortion.

And you can't demonstrate that God is anti-abortion. That is what I am trying to say - the Bible is interpreted all the time. Your verses 'indicate' (your exact words foss) that God is anti abortion - that is your belief, that is how you interpret the Bible. However, if you set interpretation aside - there is no 'concrete' verse or passage that actually mentions pro or anti abortion in the bible. If there is Foss - please point it out to me...

It's also instructive that you cannot explain the verses that I've furnished.

Go through verse by verse - go to any pro abortion website foss - they can do it better than I. I am not that interested in this point by point discussion - I was trying to point out the Bible can be used by both sides of the issue, with equal results.

Proverbs 8:36 - this one is especially for YOU, foxpaws...[/B]

I love God, doesn't work really well. How about checking out Psalm 52:8

So, how about that 40 day thing Foss- if brain waves (and therefore life in your estimation) start at 40 days, how do you defend not allowing abortion before 40 days...

 

[foxpaws]

Dodging a reasonable question by asking a leading question is rude. It shows a lack of good faith and a lack of civility in the discussion.

So, since you dodge them constantly Shag - where does that you leave you?

I asked because I know you wouldn't answer - I believe that the word 'born' should not be interpreted to mean 'life'. If we want to change where rights begin we need to do it through an amendment. I have stated this pretty clearly earlier shag.

So shag - do you think we should interpret the constitution in this case?

 

[foxpaws]

You could simply admit you are not familiar with Olasky's argument and refrain from asserting either narrative is true because you are not familiar with, nor have critically analyzed both narratives enough to reasonable comment. Instead, you are attacking the messenger and distorting what little of his message has been presented. That demonstrates that you are not interested in an honest discussion but in propagandizing. Again, Deceit is in haste, but honesty can wait a fair leisure.

I very specifically stated I would go after Olasky first- let's get him off the table first shag - I will then go after your second source, Dellapenna.

Or are you not able to defend the points that I brought up. This appears to be very lazy on your part - that post of mine is very wall of text - and that is just one of your sources. I would hate to see how it would look with adding your additional flawed source.

So - shag - in good faith - lets talk about Olasky first

Frankly, I expected you to go into propaganda mode on this issue rather quick and you didn't disappoint. My only concern was in pointing out that the narrative you present should not be accepted without question; that Mohr's narrative should be honestly and critically considered against other narratives. Unfortunately, as you have demonstrated countless times on this forum and in this thread specifically, you don't possess the integrity or patience to do so.

I was waiting for you to bring up Olasky, standard procedure with the right - so lets discuss Olasky Shag - or can you? Go ahead and rebut the points I made - or maybe you just don't understand debate. You didn't go after Mohr - you just posted stuff from Olaksy that is flawed. You didn't address Mohr, I addressed Olasky. If all you can do is paste articles shag - your debate form is pretty weak. I can post articles too - I know how cut and paste works. However, in good faith, I am trying to discuss this with you. Constantly posting articles, as a form of defense, in this case from 'The Army Of God' website, is lazy and ineffectual. Do you even read the crap you post shag? Heck, I think I will go to one of the myriad of pro choice sites and just cut and paste from there - what a great debate that will be shag. You aren't interested in discussing because you can't. I have seen very little evidence that once you read something you actually understand it. You just go out and find another article, from another right wing source and post it, ala post #48...

There is no reason to waste any more time on you here specifically because you are in full propaganda mode so any further debate is simply a war of attrition where stubbornness replaces reasonable argumentation.

Nope - there is no reason for you to 'waste any more time' on me because you have no answer to my points where Olasky is wrong. Go ahead...

EDIT: It should also be noted that Fox didn't even acknowledge the work of Joseph W. Dellapenna who was mentioned in the last part of the post she was responding to (post #35). Dellapenna's work would seem to show that in fact there were plenty of laws in England and, through common law, in early America aimed at preventing abortions. As mentioned in post #35, Dellapenna's work would also strengthen some of the arguments that she is distorting and dismissing. Weather the laws Mohr cites were effective or not, the fact that they existed would poke a huge hole in Mohr's fundamental argument.

And once again - I will get to Dellapenna's work once we go through Olasky - Olasky was first in your little cut and paste tirade shag - lets deal with him first. Here you even start to understand how weak Olasky's defense is... although you mistakenly attribute Mohr as citing those laws.

I am beginning to think that you don't even think for yourself. All you can do is cut and paste. How does it feel to go through life depending on others to think for you shag?

 

[fossten]

And you should learn to read foss - those passages show where life begins - not that abortion is endorsed by God. I don't believe abortion is endorsed by God, however I am sensible enough not to try to foist my beliefs onto someone else.

First of all, only Adam's example shows life beginning, and even you in all your dishonesty can't be so absurd as to demand that God's first human creation be born of water! Furthermore, do you really believe this passage? If you do, then you deny evolution! Tsk, tsk, fox, you can't have it both ways. Did man evolve from amoebas or did God breathe life into Adam? Hmm?

Are you a Creationist now?

The Ezekiel passage is a vision. Sorry you don't understand context.

And the child brought BACK TO LIFE is hardly an example of life BEGINNING, but rather continuing or being RESTORED.

1. Show me how these passages demonstrate that life does not begin at conception. Your biggest logical flaw is that you ASSUME that these verses indicate that conception isn't the BEGINNING of life. They do not do that. So you're guilty of a non sequitur and of circular reasoning.

2. When taken in context, there are numerous passages where the Bible refers to a woman "conceiving and giving birth" as one event. It implies that conception and birth are inextricably linked.

3. Are you so linear that you believe that these three verses describe THE ONLY means of life beginning?

These is a penalty for killing a baby - not for ending a pregnancy.

The Bible verse I listed clearly refers to John the Baptist in the womb as a BABY. Sorry, you FAIL.

And you can't demonstrate that God is anti-abortion. That is what I am trying to say - the Bible is interpreted all the time. Your verses 'indicate' (your exact words foss) that God is anti abortion - that is your belief, that is how you interpret the Bible. However, if you set interpretation aside - there is no 'concrete' verse or passage that actually mentions pro or anti abortion in the bible. If there is Foss - please point it out to me...

I've already done it. You just refuse to listen. But what else is new - when you're myopic, even the truth bashing you over the head only annoys.

You can try using verses out of context all you want, but one thing you cannot do is EXPLAIN the Bible. I can do that. Unlike you, who trumpet your so-called knowledge of all things Ayn Rand, I actually DO know the Bible and can explain it and teach it. You're out of your league here. But keep it up, I'm amused by your feeble attempts to misuse the Scriptures.

By the way, please point out to me the 'concrete' passage in the Constitution that ensures a woman the right to an abortion. I'll wait.

Go through verse by verse - go to any pro abortion website foss - they can do it better than I. I am not that interested in this point by point discussion - I was trying to point out the Bible can be used by both sides of the issue, with equal results.

I've already done it, and I've also linked a website that refutes, verse by verse, all the OUT OF CONTEXT misapplications by the murderous abortion crowd.

 

[shagdrum]

You didn't go after Mohr - you just posted stuff from Olaksy that is flawed. You didn't address Mohr, I addressed Olasky

Apparently, in your rush to distort and dismiss my points you failed to realized that what I originally posted was a source that cited Olasky, not Olasky himself. So...you did not address Olasky's arguments.

Again, Deceit is in haste, but honesty can wait a fair leisure.

 

[fossten]

Nope - there is no reason for you to 'waste any more time' on me because you have no answer to my points where Olasky is wrong. Go ahead...

1. Topic comes up
2. Discussion begins
3. Foxpaws shows up and draws false comparison or throws up straw men/red herrings or a bunch of nonsense
4. Conservs call her out for her dishonesty
5. Foxpaws happily plays victim and doggedly continues to defend, deflect, and change the subject
6. Everyone tires of her ad nauseum arguments and leaves the thread
7. Foxpaws claims victory

 

[fossten]

I am beginning to think that you don't even think for yourself. All you can do is cut and paste. How does it feel to go through life depending on others to think for you shag?

Pot, meet kettle. You who paste Bible verses without a single clue what they mean or where they're found. I doubt you could look them up in an actual, physical Bible if you needed to.

 

[fossten]

What about a baby that is post-preemie age, and is perfectly healthy, but is delivered via C-section?

What about the same baby who is healthy and post preemie age, but instead has all its arms, legs, and brains sucked out by a metal suction device, and is then dumped into a hamper?

Using the rules that foxpaws lives by...

Since she hasn't answered this post, I'm going to assume she has no answer for it, and thus claim victory.

Foxpaws, you lose the thread.

 

[Calabrio]

Substituting 'life' for 'born' does expand the constitution Cal... you have to interpret to get to that point.

No, the principle is constant..
the constitution doesn't mention telephones either, but that doesn't mean it's an "expansion" of the constitution to decide that the government doesn't have the right to eavesdrop.

Before you had argued that the DOI wasn't law - that is not in the constitution - our rights are spelled out a little more clearly in the constitution, and are defined as happening upon birth...

The DOI is a founding document.
The 14th amendment defines a condition of national citizenship in response to the freed slaves.

You can debate this any number of ways, ultimately, if you decide that there is a human life involved, then you have to deny it it's "life" if it's destroyed. The "born" distinction is a distraction and merely a construct of the technology available at the time- IF you think that a human life, endowed by the creator, is involved.

Whether it's protected by the constitution due to citizenship or natural law is besides the point.

You have to change the constitution to get beyond 'birth'. Are you killing an individual when you abort a 3 week old fetus?

If we decide that a fetus is an individual at 3 week yes.
If we decide not, then no.

That is an argument among scientists and religious leaders,

So you're saying that it's a political issue to be decided by the population through debate... not a manufactured "right" set-in stone by the Supreme Court.

but in the constitution rights - and if you want to include life liberty and the pursuit - don't start until you are born...

And how do we define "birth".
Is a baby born when it's feet protrude.
Is it o.k. to spin a baby around before birth, pull the feet out, then puncture the head to kill it before it breaches?

"Born" isn't the important word. I would argue that "created and endowed" are more important.

It isn't OK - and anytime a fetus can live outside the womb on its own it should be allowed to live. It has been 'born' and now has rights. Same as your baby/cord around neck question.

So you would then support a complete ban on partial birth abortion provided the PHYSICAL health of the Mother is not in jeopardy.

In short, I think the only valid constitutional argument regard abortion is that it should be illegal and that it violates the life of the individual- in this case the baby. Not protecting the nonsensical "right" to an abortion under the guise of privacy.

Otherwise, it is a political issue, one that needs to discussed and debated openly in public. And through that, a community or state can arrive at a consensus opinion and apply the restrictions and rules that make sense. There is no reason it has to be an all or nothing debate.

And regardless the debate, we as a society should work on deterring women from making such a choice, be it legal or not.

 

[foxpaws]

Apparently, in your rush to distort and dismiss my points you failed to realized that what I originally posted was a source that cited Olasky, not Olasky himself. So...you did not address Olasky's arguments.

Again, Deceit is in haste, but honesty can wait a fair leisure.

I addressed Olasky - his 'cites,' they are from his book - distilled in an easy for shag to understand by no doubt one of your favorite websites - Army of God...

This indicates to me that you have nothing Shag - you can't discuss this on your own, using your own ideas, because you have none... nada.... You can't even defend the source you post...

 

[fossten]

I addressed Olasky - his 'cites,' they are from his book - distilled in an easy for shag to understand by no doubt one of your favorite websites - Army of God...

This indicates to me that you have nothing Shag - you can't discuss this on your own, using your own ideas, because you have none... nada.... You can't even defend the source you post...

1. Topic comes up
2. Discussion begins
3. Foxpaws shows up and draws false comparison or throws up straw men/red herrings or a bunch of nonsense
4. Conservs call her out for her dishonesty
5. Foxpaws happily plays victim and doggedly continues to defend, deflect, and change the subject
6. Everyone tires of her ad nauseum arguments and leaves the thread
7. Foxpaws claims victory

 

[foxpaws]

First of all, only Adam's example shows life beginning, and even you in all your dishonesty can't be so absurd as to demand that God's first human creation be born of water! Furthermore, do you really believe this passage? If you do, then you deny evolution! Tsk, tsk, fox, you can't have it both ways. Did man evolve from amoebas or did God breathe life into Adam? Hmm?

Are you a Creationist now?

The Ezekiel passage is a vision. Sorry you don't understand context.

And the child brought BACK TO LIFE is hardly an example of life BEGINNING, but rather continuing or being RESTORED.

1. Show me how these passages demonstrate that life does not begin at conception. Your biggest logical flaw is that you ASSUME that these verses indicate that conception isn't the BEGINNING of life. They do not do that. So you're guilty of a non sequitur and of circular reasoning.

2. When taken in context, there are numerous passages where the Bible refers to a woman "conceiving and giving birth" as one event. It implies that conception and birth are inextricably linked.

3. Are you so linear that you believe that these three verses describe THE ONLY means of life beginning?


The Bible verse I listed clearly refers to John the Baptist in the womb as a BABY. Sorry, you FAIL.

I've already done it. You just refuse to listen. But what else is new - when you're myopic, even the truth bashing you over the head only annoys.

You can try using verses out of context all you want, but one thing you cannot do is EXPLAIN the Bible. I can do that. Unlike you, who trumpet your so-called knowledge of all things Ayn Rand, I actually DO know the Bible and can explain it and teach it. You're out of your league here. But keep it up, I'm amused by your feeble attempts to misuse the Scriptures.

By the way, please point out to me the 'concrete' passage in the Constitution that ensures a woman the right to an abortion. I'll wait.

I've already done it, and I've also linked a website that refutes, verse by verse, all the OUT OF CONTEXT misapplications by the murderous abortion crowd.

And once again foss - all I am asking is for verse that doesn't have to be interpreted to give us a definitive answer. You still are resorting to interpretation and 'indication'. You are using verse out of context, and are resorting to EXPLAINING the Bible in your viewpoint. I can explain the Bible too... Here, however I ask to set aside explanation. If you have to resort to explanation and interpretation, then the 'other side' can as well. Then you are in a quagmire of 'I think it means this' and 'no it means this'.

I would also like to see the concrete passage in the Constitution that doesn't allow a woman the right to an abortion. What is the common practice when there isn't a concrete 'law' that prohibits?

 

[foxpaws]

Pot, meet kettle. You who paste Bible verses without a single clue what they mean or where they're found. I doubt you could look them up in an actual, physical Bible if you needed to.

I guess all those years of parochial school are starting to fail me now... Bibles - my favorite is my white leather bound King James version given to me by my Grandparents when I was confirmed.... However it is the old school standby that gets the most use... complete with sticky notes, highlighter pen marks and tons of notes in the margins...

 

[shagdrum]

...distilled in an easy for shag to understand by no doubt one of your favorite websites - Army of God...

Getting downright nasty I see...

This indicates to me that you have nothing Shag - you can't discuss this on your own, using your own ideas, because you have none... nada.... You can't even defend the source you post...

...or I simply find it futile to waste my time on liars.

As I said, my only goal here was to point out that the narrative you present should be critically analyzed and compared to opposing narratives; something neither you nor I are informed enough at this point to do.

To attempt to do so at this time show two things; a lack of prudence and a rush to judgment. Both are characteristics of a propagandist.

Once more for emphasis: Deceit is in haste, but honesty can wait a fair leisure.

 

[foxpaws]

Using the rules that foxpaws lives by...

Since she hasn't answered this post, I'm going to assume she has no answer for it, and thus claim victory.

Foxpaws, you lose the thread.

I stated earlier that I certainly don't believe that partial birth abortions should be legal. I did that in one of Cals posts

I haven't claimed victory - I just want shag to actually show that he thinks for himself- to actually look at the points I have made against olasky and rebut them...

 

[shagdrum]

I guess all those years of parochial school are starting to fail me now... Bibles - my favorite is my white leather bound King James version given to me by my Grandparents when I was confirmed.... However it is the old school standby that gets the most use... complete with sticky notes, highlighter pen marks and tons of notes in the margins...

Like that copy of Road to Serfdom that you read?

 

[shagdrum]

to actually look at the points I have made against Olasky and rebut them...

If you would discuss things honestly and in good faith, I would love to do so.

 

[foxpaws]

Getting downright nasty I see...



...or I simply find it futile to waste my time on liars.

As I said, my only goal here was to point out that the narrative you present should be critically analyzed and compared to opposing narratives; something neither you nor I are informed enough at this point to do.

To attempt to do so at this time show two things; a lack of prudence and a rush to judgment. Both are characteristics of a propagandist.

Once more for emphasis: Deceit is in haste, but honesty can wait a fair leisure.

Your quote wears thin shag- because obviously you have no answer to my tearing apart olaksy... honestly If you do have a response to that, please post it - otherwise I am going to assume that I don't even need to respond to the second source, because I will get the same lack of informed discussion as I am getting with the Olasky debate.

 

[foxpaws]

And if you would discuss things honestly and in good faith, I would love to do so.

Here I have - I have torn apart your source, go for it shag, show me you can actually think beyond the text that you post. That you can defend the concepts that you cut and paste in your own words... I am very tired of just looking at article after article that you post, and then, all you do is post another article in defense.

 

[shagdrum]

Your quote wears thin shag- because obviously you have no answer to my tearing apart olaksy... honestly If you do have a response to that, please post it - otherwise I am going to assume that I don't even need to respond to the second source, because I will get the same lack of informed discussion as I am getting with the Olasky debate.

Everyone who frequents this section of the forum including knows that we would never have gotten off the topic of Olasky. It would have become another war of attrition that I don't have time for or interest in.

 

[foxpaws]

Like that copy of Road to Serfdom that you read?

Sure did - not last year like you shag - I am sure it is fresher in your mind than mine, I don't often go back and review school texts. You will find once you graduate and get on with your life, that school texts fade back... Lets revisit this in 20 years and see how much you remember of the texts you read in school...

 

[foxpaws]

No, the principle is constant..
the constitution doesn't mention telephones either, but that doesn't mean it's an "expansion" of the constitution to decide that the government doesn't have the right to eavesdrop.


The DOI is a founding document.
The 14th amendment defines a condition of national citizenship in response to the freed slaves.

You can debate this any number of ways, ultimately, if you decide that there is a human life involved, then you have to deny it it's "life" if it's destroyed. The "born" distinction is a distraction and merely a construct of the technology available at the time- IF you think that a human life, endowed by the creator, is involved.

Whether it's protected by the constitution due to citizenship or natural law is besides the point.


If we decide that a fetus is an individual at 3 week yes.
If we decide not, then no.


So you're saying that it's a political issue to be decided by the population through debate... not a manufactured "right" set-in stone by the Supreme Court.


And how do we define "birth".
Is a baby born when it's feet protrude.
Is it o.k. to spin a baby around before birth, pull the feet out, then puncture the head to kill it before it breaches?

"Born" isn't the important word. I would argue that "created and endowed" are more important.


So you would then support a complete ban on partial birth abortion provided the PHYSICAL health of the Mother is not in jeopardy.

In short, I think the only valid constitutional argument regard abortion is that it should be illegal and that it violates the life of the individual- in this case the baby. Not protecting the nonsensical "right" to an abortion under the guise of privacy.

Otherwise, it is a political issue, one that needs to discussed and debated openly in public. And through that, a community or state can arrive at a consensus opinion and apply the restrictions and rules that make sense. There is no reason it has to be an all or nothing debate.

And regardless the debate, we as a society should work on deterring women from making such a choice, be it legal or not.

Cal - thank you... I will get back to you shortly - you comments are thoughtful and insightful, and I will be glad to discuss this with you since you have spent the time to articulate your own thoughts, and haven't taken to posting articles that in reality mean little in a debate where personal choice is the issue at hand.

 

[shagdrum]

Sure did - not last year like you shag - I am sure it is fresher in your mind than mine, I don't often go back and review school texts.

Yet you couldn't grasp one of the fundamental arguments the book makes when repeated in a thread discussing that book (among other things). No disingenuous misrepresentation of your background there, eh?

Also, what makes you think I read the book for school?

 

[foxpaws]

Everyone who frequents this section of the forum including knows that we would never have gotten off the topic of Olasky. It would have become another war of attrition that I don't have time for or interest in.

So, rather than actually discussing the first part of your defense shag - taking this one step at a time, you dismiss this entirely. You used your two sources to rebut mine. I have taken the time to begin to begin to rebut yours, by going after the actual points brought up in your source, rather than going out and posting yet another article that rebuts Olasky (believe me, I could, there are lots of them). I would like to see your response to this first step, before I actually start to go after part two of your source. You never addressed my source with your own concepts or your own words shag, you just quickly went out to a right wing source and cut and pasted. You aren't very good at debate shag, if you can't articulate in 'your own words' what all that cut and paste source that you are so fond of using really means, and then defend it, in your own words.

 

[shagdrum]

You used your two sources to rebut mine.

So now you are misrepresenting my actions; taking them out of context...but you are discussing things in good faith?