‹ First  < 32 33 34 35 36 >  Last ›
 
   
 

Pro-life Atheists

 
Giova
 
Avatar
 
 
Giova
Total Posts:  47
Joined  24-12-2008
 
 
 
09 January 2009 08:03
 
Nulono - 09 January 2009 10:35 AM

It is also used to refer to live births.

First you said it could only mean a live birth and thus staked your entire argument on this claim. You were wrong. I showed you two other verses that use the same verb in reference to nonviable fetuses. 

It just means a birth.

Yeah, a birth of anything, dead fetuses included.

If there is a birth and no harm is done, it must, by definition, be a live birth.

When you admit the possibility, in verse 23, of a deadly injury to both mother and child, you admit that the verb can indeed mean a stillbirth or miscarriage. This destroys your “live-birth only” interpretation for the verb and forces one to limit the ‘harm’ done to the woman with the understanding that she miscarries in each case. This is the verdict of all the prevailing textual, historical, and medical evidence of such a case and most scholars concur. End of story. Next time, have a better response than to be a broken record.

 
Nulono
 
Avatar
 
 
Nulono
Total Posts:  294
Joined  08-10-2008
 
 
 
09 January 2009 09:10
 

The verb can mean a miscarriage, but not when modified by “and no harm is done”.

If a birth is caused and no harm is done, a miscarriage is ruled out.

 
 
Giova
 
Avatar
 
 
Giova
Total Posts:  47
Joined  24-12-2008
 
 
 
09 January 2009 09:50
 
Nulono - 09 January 2009 02:10 PM

The verb can mean a miscarriage, but not when modified by “and no harm is done”.

If a birth is caused and no harm is done, a miscarriage is ruled out.

And taking the conditional “no harm in done” in reference to the mother, this makes our interpretations 50/50. All I’m saying is that when you take other evidence relating to this text in its historical context—all the textual, historical, and medical—then my interpretation wins out.

 
Nulono
 
Avatar
 
 
Nulono
Total Posts:  294
Joined  08-10-2008
 
 
 
09 January 2009 10:04
 
Giova - 09 January 2009 02:50 PM
Nulono - 09 January 2009 02:10 PM

The verb can mean a miscarriage, but not when modified by “and no harm is done”.

If a birth is caused and no harm is done, a miscarriage is ruled out.

And taking the conditional “no harm in done” in reference to the mother, this makes our interpretations 50/50. All I’m saying is that when you take other evidence relating to this text in its historical context—all the textual, historical, and medical—then my interpretation wins out.

But “harm” is not qualified, so it could apply to both. If I hire you to babysit my 2 children, and tell you not to cause harm, you mustn’t harm my daughter, or my son, or my television.

If you harmed my daughter, you can’t say “I thought ‘harm’ only applied to your son, because you didn’t list all the entities to which harm was forbidden.”.

If the noun “harm” is not qualified, it defalts to ANY harm; harm to the child is harm, harm to the mother is harm, and harm to both is harm.

Also, the link you posted presents a false dichotomy:  that the word either refers to a live birth or a miscarriage. The word simply refers to a birth, live or not. Thus, the qualifier “no harm is done” restricts it to a live birth in Exodus 21:22, but a different modifier “more mischief follows” is used in Exodus 21:23 to have it mean a miscarriage and/or death of the mother.

But, if the only choices were live birth and miscarriage, the link would be right. But the verp was simply “to go forth”, or “to depart”, as the KJV translates it. It simply refers to a birth.

[ Edited: 09 January 2009 10:21 by Nulono]
 
 
Giova
 
Avatar
 
 
Giova
Total Posts:  47
Joined  24-12-2008
 
 
 
09 January 2009 10:16
 
Nulono - 09 January 2009 03:04 PM

But “harm” is not qualified, so it could apply to both.

It does not need to be qualified because the mother could have miscarried in both cases, thus the harm only applies to her. The fetus is already harmed on account of the assault, and it was unthinkable in the ancient society in which the Hebrews lived that a fetus could survive such a violent attack as that described in Exodus. We’re going in circles. There is nothing more to be said unless you can contradict all the historical context that weighs in favor of my interpretation. Your analogies are incomparable due to the circumstance of a violent attack already being perpetrated on the woman and her baby.

 
Nulono
 
Avatar
 
 
Nulono
Total Posts:  294
Joined  08-10-2008
 
 
 
09 January 2009 11:07
 

The woman could not have miscarried in both circumstances because no harm is done in the first.

We are, in fact, going in circles. Our argument is basically:

Nulono: It clearly states in the first case that no harm is done.
Giova: “Harm” only applies to the mother.
Nulono: Why does “harm” only apply to the mother?
Giova: Because the mother could’ve miscarried in either case.
Nulono: But it clearly states in the first case that no harm is done.
Giova: “Harm” only applies to the mother.
Nulono: Why does “harm” only apply to the mother?
Giova: Because the mother could’ve miscarried in either case.
Nulono: But it clearly states in the first case that no harm is done.
Giova: “Harm” only applies to the mother.
Nulono: Why does “harm” only apply to the mother?
Giova: Because the mother could’ve miscarried in either case.
Nulono: But it clearly states in the first case that no harm is done.
Giova: “Harm” only applies to the mother.
Nulono: Why does “harm” only apply to the mother?
Giova: Because the mother could’ve miscarried in either case.
Nulono: But it clearly states in the first case that no harm is done.
Giova: “Harm” only applies to the mother.
Nulono: Why does “harm” only apply to the mother?
Giova: Because the mother could’ve miscarried in either case.
Nulono: But it clearly states in the first case that no harm is done.
Giova: “Harm” only applies to the mother.
Nulono: Why does “harm” only apply to the mother?
Giova: Because the mother could’ve miscarried in either case.
Nulono: But it clearly states in the first case that no harm is done.
Giova: “Harm” only applies to the mother.
Nulono: Why does “harm” only apply to the mother?
Giova: Because the mother could’ve miscarried in either case.
Nulono: But it clearly states in the first case that no harm is done.
Giova: “Harm” only applies to the mother.
Nulono: Why does “harm” only apply to the mother?
Giova: Because the mother could’ve miscarried in either case.
Nulono: But it clearly states in the first case that no harm is done.
Giova: “Harm” only applies to the mother.
Nulono: Why does “harm” only apply to the mother?
Giova: Because the mother could’ve miscarried in either case.
Nulono: But it clearly states in the first case that no harm is done.
Giova: “Harm” only applies to the mother.
Nulono: Why does “harm” only apply to the mother?
Giova: Because the mother could’ve miscarried in either case.
Nulono: But it clearly states in the first case that no harm is done.
Giova: “Harm” only applies to the mother.
Nulono: Why does “harm” only apply to the mother?
Giova: Because the mother could’ve miscarried in either case.
Nulono: But it clearly states in the first case that no harm is done.
Giova: “Harm” only applies to the mother.

et cetera…

Your devotion to the mistranslation is almost religious in nature, which is strange because of all the other verses you could use. I’m putting you on ignore, because you don’t understand that “‘Harm’ only applies to the mother because she could’ve miscarried in either case because ‘harm’ only applies to the mother because she could’ve miscarried in either case because ‘harm’ only applies to the mother because she could’ve miscarried in either case because ‘harm’ only applies to the mother because she could’ve miscarried in either case because ‘harm’ only applies to the mother because…” is not a reasonable argument.

You also insist on citing the Bible for some odd reason, even though we are both atheists.

[ Edited: 09 January 2009 11:21 by Nulono]
 
 
Giova
 
Avatar
 
 
Giova
Total Posts:  47
Joined  24-12-2008
 
 
 
09 January 2009 12:02
 

As you can see, Nulono hired me a while back to babysit his children. Upon arriving at his house, and right after he had left, they were all begging for me to kill them before he returned. I left that night feeling a little sorry about their predicament. What should I do when I go back? Is it ever morally permissible to put a human being out of their misery in the circumstances they live in, however deplorable and degenerate?

 
Nulono
 
Avatar
 
 
Nulono
Total Posts:  294
Joined  08-10-2008
 
 
 
09 January 2009 15:01
 

I see I put you on ignore for a good reason. Nice maturity.

But it is never moral to “put someone out of their ‘misery’” without their express permission. Even with thier permission, one must be sure they are in a reasonable mental state; sex with a drunk person is rape. Since being suicidal is generally considered a mental disorder, the anwer to your question is no.

 
 
Giova
 
Avatar
 
 
Giova
Total Posts:  47
Joined  24-12-2008
 
 
 
10 January 2009 11:16
 
Nulono - 09 January 2009 08:01 PM

I see I put you on ignore for a good reason.

Enjoy the last conversation you may ever have—everyone else has already put you on their ignore list. And I can completely understand why they have done so without ever considering your last word syndrome.

And like fuck I was asking you for that moral advice. I don’t need moral advice from someone who supports pedophilia. I see you are quite the NAMBLA fan on that site. No wonder you are opposed to abortion so much: you want the kiddies all to yourself!

 
zelzo
 
Avatar
 
 
zelzo
Total Posts:  2029
Joined  20-12-2007
 
 
 
10 January 2009 12:05
 
Carstonio - 03 January 2009 04:42 PM
Nulono - 03 January 2009 03:55 PM

““To say that men and women should not inject their ‘personal morality’ into public policy debates is a practical absurdity; our law is by definition a codification of morality” ~President-elect Obama


Not quite. Most of us agree that cheating on one’s spouse is immoral, but most of us also agree that trying to make cheating illegal would constitute an invasion of privacy. Just because something is immoral doesn’t justify making it illegal.


The operative words here are “just because”.  Something does not become illegal solely because it is immoral.  But we use our moral beliefs to come to conclusions about what “should” become illegal—-they are part of the consideration. Those beliefs are often at odds depending on one’s perspective of what is “immoral.”

 
 
Nulono
 
Avatar
 
 
Nulono
Total Posts:  294
Joined  08-10-2008
 
 
 
10 January 2009 12:47
 
Giova - 10 January 2009 04:16 PM
Nulono - 09 January 2009 08:01 PM

I see I put you on ignore for a good reason.

Enjoy the last conversation you may ever have—everyone else has already put you on their ignore list. And I can completely understand why they have done so without ever considering your last word syndrome.

And like fuck I was asking you for that moral advice. I don’t need moral advice from someone who supports pedophilia. I see you are quite the NAMBLA fan on that site. No wonder you are opposed to abortion so much: you want the kiddies all to yourself!

Great. I support the right of young people to make their own sexual decisions, and that automatically means I’m attracted to them myself?

lindajean - 10 January 2009 05:05 PM
Carstonio - 03 January 2009 04:42 PM
Nulono - 03 January 2009 03:55 PM

““To say that men and women should not inject their ‘personal morality’ into public policy debates is a practical absurdity; our law is by definition a codification of morality” ~President-elect Obama


Not quite. Most of us agree that cheating on one’s spouse is immoral, but most of us also agree that trying to make cheating illegal would constitute an invasion of privacy. Just because something is immoral doesn’t justify making it illegal.


The operative words here are “just because”.  Something does not become illegal solely because it is immoral.  But we use our moral beliefs to come to conclusions about what “should” become illegal—-they are part of the consideration. Those beliefs are often at odds depending on one’s perspective of what is “immoral.”

Cheating on one’s spouse is not immoral.

 
 
zelzo
 
Avatar
 
 
zelzo
Total Posts:  2029
Joined  20-12-2007
 
 
 
10 January 2009 12:50
 

author=“M is for Malapert” date=“1231247064”]

Many pro-choice people are like me: perfectly willing to accept a European-style compromise, where effective contraception and early abortion (up to 10 or 12 weeks) are readily available, uncontroversial, and integrated into the medical system. (In other words, the same doctor who does a woman’s Pap tests and delivers her babies, also prescribes her contraception and performs her abortions if it fails.  Physician-staffed HMOs, like Kaiser, already do this.) 

Meanwhile, second-trimester abortion would be available only after review by a board of doctors, and third-trimester abortion would remain as it is today, mostly illegal, hardly occurring, and not an issue.

In over ten years of debating this issue, only one pro-lifer has agreed.  They are willing to display pictures of dead second-trimester fetuses, constituting a tiny percentage of the total number of abortions even when they aren’t faked, as if later abortion should be considered worse than abortion at five or six weeks, when the embryo is too small to be seen.  But they are not willing to do anything that would make such abortions as rare as they are elsewhere, by making contraception and early abortion readily available to all women, including teens.

Mal, your conversation here is very interesting. I’m learning a lot about abortion that I never thought about before.

It seems that the term “abortion” is too general of a term when you talk about the 3 different stages of abortion above. It would be more clear to the public (I think) if medical professionals and politicians came up with different terms for early, mid and late term abortions.

For example, I tend to favor abortions in the first trimester and not so in 2nd and third because of obvious reasons.  So if I could refer to the first trimester as “extractions” everyone would know what I am talking about.  If I was referring to 2nd trimester as “drawing out” people would understand that term. And 3rd trimesters as “abortion”.... (I’m not advocating those exact terms, just that making a semantic separation between the terms would be helpful.)

As long as the righters can throw around “abortion” to mean killing a fetus at 38 weeks and terminating a fetus at 2 weeks,  then they will continue to be successful at convincing “uneducated” people that all abortions are the same dastardly deeds.

 
 
Nulono
 
Avatar
 
 
Nulono
Total Posts:  294
Joined  08-10-2008
 
 
 
10 January 2009 12:58
 

“Terminate” is a euphemism. You can terminate a process, but not an entity. Killing is terminating a life.

Regardless of when it is done, an abortion is an abortion is an abortion. All are the killing of a prenate. Just like stealing $4 or $40 or $4,000,000 are all theft. Just like killing a 4-month-old or a 4-year-old or a 40-year old are all homicide.

[ Edited: 10 January 2009 13:02 by Nulono]
 
 
burt
 
Avatar
 
 
burt
Total Posts:  14673
Joined  17-12-2006
 
 
 
10 January 2009 20:44
 
Nulono - 10 January 2009 05:58 PM

“Terminate” is a euphemism. You can terminate a process, but not an entity. Killing is terminating a life.

Regardless of when it is done, an abortion is an abortion is an abortion. All are the killing of a prenate. Just like stealing $4 or $40 or $4,000,000 are all theft. Just like killing a 4-month-old or a 4-year-old or a 40-year old are all homicide.

Prove it.  All you have ever done here is state your opinion and claim it as fact.  Nobody agrees with you—doesn’t that indicate something, or are you the only one who is ever right?

 
Nulono
 
Avatar
 
 
Nulono
Total Posts:  294
Joined  08-10-2008
 
 
 
11 January 2009 02:00
 
burt - 11 January 2009 01:44 AM

Nobody agrees with you—doesn’t that indicate something

No it doesn’t.

 
 
‹ First  < 32 33 34 35 36 >  Last ›