I don't think it's reasonable to discuss when it's clear that the object of contention is a notion of something being sacred and inviolable. If this is the bad-making property of the act then no survey however exhaustive could add to it's description.

Here again I would remind you that the mother is immanently violable to the forced birth position...but that isn't really much of a problem, since the victim of an abortion in sacred terms is god itself. That the sacred has been violated is the problem, and if we have to violate some woman or even every woman to remedy this, that's what we're going to do.

What fascinates me about all of this, is the notion (or self apprehension) that any of this could be debatable. Can you be argued out of the belief that life is sacred? If your position on abortion meaninfully reduces to your position on the sacredness of life, in what way would that be debatable? In what way could there be any contravening facts that you would accept?

(June 19, 2021 at 12:41 pm)The Grand Nudger Wrote: Can you be argued out of the belief that life is sacred?

Why would anyone not be? People's religious beliefs are not immutable, they're free to come and go as they please.

Note that your arguments illustrate your personal pre-conventional moral thinking. That is your intellectual relationship towards the sacred, and is not representative of me, my church, or scripture. And insofar as you impose it on me, you are creating a strawman.

(June 19, 2021 at 10:58 am)John 6IX Breezy Wrote:

(June 19, 2021 at 10:45 am)brewer Wrote: If I'm reading this correctly it appears that the 'concern' should be directed at the existing life and not the potential life.

Section 4 appears to be the most relevant portion, and the one I agree with the most. Particularly, but not limited to, the initial sentence:

"The Church does not serve as conscience for individuals..."

Which is evident given that I've never been asked to read or abide by these guidelines, which I presume are directed towards our hospitals. There also appears to be an update to the 1992 statement coming up, but I'm not sure if it's available yet:

https://www.adventistreview.org/church-n...n-abortion

The article I cited didn't mention hospital, health care or medical personnel at all, so bad presumption. They appear to be guidelines for the faithful.

Section 4: The final decision whether to terminate the pregnancy, or not, should be made by the pregnant woman after appropriate consultation.
Section 5: Therefore, any attempts to coerce women either to remain pregnant or to terminate pregnancy should be rejected as infringements of personal freedom.

The link to the proposed statement was in the article I cited: https://spectrummagazine.org/news/2019/p...t-abortion

Still don't see anything about removing choice or not supporting the choice of others. Note the date. Does it normally take over a year and a half to finalize a position statement? I don't see anything in there about limiting choice.

Sounds to me, if you had your way you would choose to take away others choice.

(June 19, 2021 at 1:42 pm)brewer Wrote: I don't see anything in there about limiting choice [emphasis added].

Sounds like if you had your way you would choose to take away others choice.

And do you see anything about limiting choice in any of my comments? If so feel free to quote me. My focus has been primarily around embryogenesis and all it's pertinent variables.

p.s. Belacqua recognized early on that none of my arguments commit a person to be either pro-life or pro-choice. Everything I have said can be true, and pro-choice could still be logically compatible with it. The forum has, however, laid a minefield of strawman and ad hominems in my path. So its understandable if you haven't been as careful in navigate it as I have.

(June 19, 2021 at 2:01 pm)John 6IX Breezy Wrote:

(June 19, 2021 at 1:42 pm)brewer Wrote: I don't see anything in there about limiting choice [emphasis added].

Sounds like if you had your way you would choose to take away others choice.

And do you see anything about limiting choice in any of my comments? If so feel free to quote me. I think you'll find my focus has been primarily on embryogenesis and all it's pertinent variables.

OK, my conversation with Neo slipped in there.

How about post #171: "As such, I have no issues with abortion being justified under some scenarios but not under others.", was used as part of your argument, sounds like choice to me. Or am I missing something?

Let me ask this, how do embryo rights/value (that's been your position) impact the mothers rights/value? Or are they just a concept that has no teeth in reality?

Quote:You guys don't care how it affects or impacts the woman

Yes, we do. Forced pregnancy is a violation of a women's autonomy. That's all there is to it.

Quote:you care about the ideology. 

Nope, I have been both pro-choice and pro-life throughout my life. I have no ideological commitment. So nice try 

Quote:You would maintain your position in the absence of any impact, and even in the presence of harm, as Helios demonstrates:

"Too bad I never said doing [abortions] at home should be illegal."

Interesting you quote me selectively and don't quote where I make it clear I think home abortions are a terrible idea due to the harm it could do to the women. However, ultimately I clearly said I respect her choice to do it despite the risks. This very different than forcing her to remain pregnant and give birth against her will.


Next time try being honest 

(June 19, 2021 at 1:03 pm)John 6IX Breezy Wrote:

(June 19, 2021 at 12:41 pm)The Grand Nudger Wrote: Can you be argued out of the belief that life is sacred?

Why would anyone not be? People's religious beliefs are not immutable, they're free to come and go as they please.

Note that your arguments illustrate your personal pre-conventional moral thinking. That is your intellectual relationship towards the sacred, and is not representative of me, my church, or scripture. And insofar as you impose it on me, you are creating a strawman.

Religious beliefs are those notions of the sacred which we possess as the most compelling aspects of our beliefs about anything.  There's no coming or going or pleasing, if you posess them, they go where you are, and you will be compelled to reshape the world in their image.

If you don't possess this, then perhaps you don't have religious beliefs? You would have a set of superstitions that you can be argued out of.  You would be, effectively, mouthing the words, absent understanding.

If, for example - you believe life is sacred, then you will reject anything you see as life denying and seek to remove it from the world. If, otoh, you believe that some ghost told you not to do a thing..well, sure, I think that's debatable. There wont be any trip down the rabbit hole of your cults private superstitions, though, because none is required to understand religion or ideations about the sacred. So, since you say that the sacredness of life is debatable and you've apparently had great debates about it...what does that look like? What kind of argument or evidence would that be? Just a bunch of you and your adventist buddies standing around denying the existence of the sacred, and denying the evil of it's violation? What was the most compelling argument you were ever presented with which sought to demonstrate that life was, in fact, not sacred?

It's going to be a useful argument for when we have to indoctrinate some kids to help us force a birth. Wouldn't want them to start wondering while they were tying a girl down, you know?

(June 19, 2021 at 4:22 pm)The Grand Nudger Wrote: There's no coming or going or pleasing, if you posess them... 

Half the members on this forum are ex-Christian, that's an immediate falsification of your claim.

To all those here of a female persuasion, As a man, brother, father, son, whatever I can tell you that John thinks that women are slaves, second class, useless, brainless sex toys.

It's disgusting.
It doesn't matter what age, size, weight, shape you are. You are every bit as good as anyone else.

John thinks you are chattel because magic book tells him so.

---

(June 19, 2021 at 5:54 pm)John 6IX Breezy Wrote:

(June 19, 2021 at 4:22 pm)The Grand Nudger Wrote: There's no coming or going or pleasing, if you posess them... 

Half the members on this forum are ex-Christian, that's an immediate falsification of your claim.

Half the members here are women. What may we conclude from this?

(June 19, 2021 at 6:53 pm)Abaddon_ire Wrote: To all those here of a female persuasion, As a man, brother, father, son, whatever I can tell you that John thinks that women are slaves, second class, useless, brainless sex toys.

You forgot to mention that as a psychologist I also think women have penis envy and hysteria lol.