Forums

ForumsWorld Events, Politics, Religion, Etc.

is abortion ok?

Posted Apr 28, '13 at 8:59pm

Reton8

Reton8

2,919 posts

Moderator

Translating a passage or taking from a translation isn't "defending a position (often religious) through the systematic use of information." I'm also not defending any doctrine here. So you're claim of "last two pages apologetic nonsense for both sides" is nonsense and indicated an lack of understand of what apologetics was.



Apologetics is the discipline of defending a position (often religious) through the systematic use of information.


You initially presented a claim that "the Bible condones abortion."
I then countered your claim.
You than stood by your initial claim and defended your position that "the Bible condones abortion."
The information you present are the Bible passages you used.
You defended your position by using information.

It could be said you are just presenting a claim or information. But the return could be said for some of what I posted, presenting more information in terms of Bible passages and some times cases. In this circumstance no one is performing an at of apologetic as no one is defending a position, but just presenting information.

Or

This could be said as well.
If you define information as:
1: the communication or reception of knowledge or intelligence
(Source)
and knowledge as:

2: a (1) : the fact or condition of knowing something with familiarity gained through experience or association

(Source)

By definition I defended a position with information (the communication of knowledge).
Seeing that knowledge can be classified as, "knowing something with familiarity through experience or association", it does not matter if my post sites a source or not, if the knowledge I presented came from self experience, it is information none the less.

By strict terms I it's is apologetics but not "apologetic nonsense". I still am within the definition of apologetics. That one particular thought I presented may have been weak as it was not backed by sources but it's still apologetics.
=========================================

Which would put it in the realm of pure speculation and apologetic nonsense.


Now this sentence predisposes that pure speculation is a prerequisite for apologetic nonsense. Also, I don't see how speculation is taken into account when using the following definition for apologetics.

[i]Apologetics is the discipline of defending a position (often religious) through the systematic use of information.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apologetics

You said,
I'm also not defending any doctrine here


I don't see how defending doctrine is necessary in order to defend a position. Defending any position seems to fit within the realms of Apologetics, however the term is often used with religious positions.

============================================

I will admit I was wrong to say the pages could be written off as apologetic nonsense. But I should have said written off as pure speculation.

I will admit also that the interpretations of the passages do not help define what apologetics and apologetic nonsense, but rather I should have stated at what speculation is.

=============================================

[quote]I could still claim all the interpretations you present as abortion as nonsense. The passages are quoted, and then you give us your commentary with no further source. But, I suppose you can find those sources, and I take that you have. I don't believe you are the only person holding that position.


What the hell sources do you want?! The passages are from the New International version of the Bible, which I was up front about and the commentary were my own words. What do i have to cite myself now?! [/quote]

You present Bible passages with the assumption that there can only be one interpretation of the passages and that these passages are direct commentary on abortion. You then give commentary on what the passages mean without any sources and expect the reader to accept that this is the only way the passage can be interpreted.

The passage are not originally written in English, so nuances in the meaning may differ from translation. The subject of the passages are from a culture long ago and you also do not present your credentials on how well you know this subject matter.

Now, I personally don't feel the need that you would have to site sources and state your credentials. But if you are going to pull the speculation card on me I will say the same for you.

Your initial commentary, as it stands, no sources, and no credentials is pure speculation and total nonsense.
 

Posted Apr 28, '13 at 10:12pm

partydevil

partydevil

5,261 posts

is this still about abortion? =S

 

Posted Apr 28, '13 at 11:16pm

MageGrayWolf

MageGrayWolf

9,800 posts

Knight

is this still about abortion? =S


I'm beginning to wonder if that's the point.
 

Posted Apr 28, '13 at 11:28pm

Reton8

Reton8

2,919 posts

Moderator

is this still about abortion? =S
[quote]I'm beginning to wonder if that's the point
.[/quote]


What the hell sources do you want?!

Do you even know what apologetics means?

You asked questions and I gave replies.

I would say it is off topic, or at best very loosely connected with the discussion. It probably would be best to carry on the current discussion elsewhere and allow this topic to get back on track.
 

Posted Apr 29, '13 at 12:24am

EmperorPalpatine

EmperorPalpatine

9,475 posts

Let's start off with a more basic thing. Is life intrinsically valuable?

 

Posted Apr 29, '13 at 12:27am

pangtongshu

pangtongshu

9,919 posts

I could give the example that a parent will set a bedtime for there children, but do the parents also have to follow that standard? Must they go to bed at the same time as the children.


No..but then again, there is a huge difference between a parent sending a child to bed and a god killing its creations (and making them go through an eternity of torture) because they didn't follow his rules.

the Old Testament is more brutal because God needed to move a certain group of people from one area to another and preserve their lineage so that Jesus could be born. God being God, on occasion gave His people the right to kill the people who would stand in their way.


Or god, being the omnipotent power that he is, could have just protected the people in harmless ways for all, so that Jesus could be born. Or just not care about the lineage..and just have Jesus born.
Jesus's birth has no need for lineage..just a host to birth him.

But, in all cases quoted, these deeds were being preformed against the will of the women/person and as a form of punishment.

Yet in today's society we are performing abortions not as punishment and on women who usually have the abortions of their own will.


So wait..abortion should only be condoned if done as punishment?
So..not only do we have oppression of woman in the form of no free will over their body during the pregnancy..but also the oppression of woman for they will have their child possibly aborted if they do something that would deem such a thing as proper punishment?

If God can create the humans why does He not have a right to destroy them?

A human can kill a pig and eat it. Humans have dominion over animals. Why cannot God have dominion over humans?


So god is allowed to be tyrannical towards those he supposedly "loves"?

Yes, hence why God in human form as Jesus does live up to the standard perfectly.


But god in god form (the hell am I saying right now...) doesn't.

Should dogs be required to do homework and get jobs and live up to the standards of humans?


See now, though, we aren't expecting god to "live up" to our standards..like we would a dog in your hypothetical situation. We are expecting that he would, as an omnipotent and omni-loving god, to at least meet the standards he created for us so that we could be good little human beings.

In fact, in this argument, humans would actually be the dogs, as we are the lesser form like them. That would make god the "humans". The only difference is, we are able to live up to some of the standards given by god (unlike in your situation, where a dog can, in now way, expect to live up to such standards), but he does not live up to those standards himself (unlike in your situation, where a human does live up to such standards)..instead he goes well below those standards, to the point that if he was judged by the rules he has in place, he would most likely go to hell.
Well..did I just say that?

You then give commentary on what the passages mean without any sources and expect the reader to accept that this is the only way the passage can be interpreted.


1) Welcome to the world of explications. The source is the passage.

2) But if taking at face value, as Mage did, then he is correct. All he initially stated is that they were instances within the Bible that approved of abortion (for god was the one enacting them).

you also do not present your credentials on how well you know this subject matter.


Appeal to accomplishment

Your initial commentary, as it stands, no sources, and no credentials is pure speculation and total nonsense.


See..but he doesn't need sources. He is explicating the passages..so they are the only sources he needs.

And again..stating that he needs credentials is an appeal to accomplishment.
 

Posted Apr 29, '13 at 1:01am

MageGrayWolf

MageGrayWolf

9,800 posts

Knight

Let's start off with a more basic thing. Is life intrinsically valuable?


Does life in itself or for it's own sake have value. I would say it does. That's what often makes the decision to abort or not a hard one to make. There is cost value being weighed here. That value is often weighed in how that life will impact another.
 

Posted Apr 29, '13 at 7:20am

partydevil

partydevil

5,261 posts

Does life in itself or for it's own sake have value. I would say it does.

but are we talking about life at the point that abortions are done? or are we just talking about a mass of cells that in the future can become life? and does this mass of cells have any value? any more value then a mass of cancer cells?
 

Posted Apr 29, '13 at 3:34pm

MageGrayWolf

MageGrayWolf

9,800 posts

Knight

but are we talking about life at the point that abortions are done?


Given the question seemed to deal with life in general the stage doesn't seem to matter for that.

or are we just talking about a mass of cells that in the future can become life?


It already is life, as pointed out before it's not yet a person though.

and does this mass of cells have any value? any more value then a mass of cancer cells?


We do tend to value life, particularly our own. This is because we are alive. Given what I stated earlier of what intrinsic value is, is that not placing intrinsic value on life? We also tend to view our offspring as a continuation of our own lives in sort. Thus we do extend that value to them, regardless of stage. That's likely where many get the concept of all abortion being wrong. This value we place on life in general and this value we place on our own and extend to that mass of cells creates the cost value that has to be considered.
 

Posted Apr 29, '13 at 5:56pm

partydevil

partydevil

5,261 posts

that is if you see the mass of cells as life. i for one do not see it that way.
a fertilized egg cell has no more value then a cancer cell to me untill it starts having brain activity.

(anyway i have not been following the entire last few pages because it didn't look like the subject of abortion. and i was to late to follow the conversation of you 2 from the beginning.)

 
Reply to is abortion ok?

You must be logged in to post a reply!