Homosexuality and the Bible

Get Email Updates Email this Topic Print this Page

Lily
 
Reply Tue 18 Aug, 2009 08:34 am
@click here,
click here;83838 wrote:
You are joking right? You can't obtain morals from science. Moral laws are not the same as physical laws of nature.

I don't mean that I kill people, because it's the survival of the fitest, but I do belive that we doesn't always have free will (if ever), and that homosexuality is ok.


click here;83838 wrote:

Just my paraphrases:

If you look at someone lustfully you have already committed adultery within your heart. Matthew 5:28

If you hate someone you have already committed murder with in your heart. Matthew 5:21-22

To me, that sound more like when I'm angry and say"If you don't stop slamming the doors in the morning, I'll slap you"
It sounds really good, but it doesn't mean anything. But again you have a point.

click here;83838 wrote:

There are different types of love. I love my brother, but that is not a sin as I do not wish to have sexual relations with him.

If a guy loves a guy in a sexual manner that is still wrong. If you desire to kill someone but you do not go through with it would you not agree that the desire is not a 'right' thought?

Yes, the desire to kill someone is wrong. But if to people love eachother, and want to have sex, but not have children, does it matter if it is two guy/girls or a girl and a guy?

click here;83838 wrote:

What makes your heart more of an authority on morals then the Bible?

My heart is actually adapted to todays society. The Bible isn't. Have you ever considered that the Bible just might be totally wrong?

click here;83838 wrote:

Out of curiosity what Swedish translation were you using, and where are you from in Sweden?

The old one, from 1917. I'm from the west coast.

click here;83838 wrote:

Why is Paul not an authority?

Another excuse for you not to be a Christian? Who said you chose that? Course that is another deep topic in itself.

Paul isn't God. I just thought it was a bit funny.
What? Who says that I don't chose that? Being a christian is for like trying to love a guy who's really a jerk.
 
Holiday20310401
 
Reply Tue 18 Aug, 2009 12:28 pm
@Lily,
To reply to Matthew 5:28 I say, how could the heart sin? Shouldn't the concept of the heart be left to that which strives for 'good' intentions.

I do not see how sexual orientation could be governed by choice. It may not be completely biological, but it certainly starts there. The environment would probably play a role in who out of the selection of their sexual orientation they'd find more attractive.

I know homosexuals, many of them are depressed over their orientation. They'll complain to god over why they had to have a woman's desire in a man's body. The simple fact of the matter is they - can't - help - it.

And why would god tell this person (through a text), well you're wrong. Homosexuality is wrong, bad, evil. Or more appropriately, how could any interpretation condemn moreso deterministic (as is pertinent) matters? What does that say of the interpreter? That's like denying reality. "This chunk of reality is wrong". "This chunk is right".

I have a question. When it comes to following the bible, and acting upon it's morals, I've noticed that many morals seem to conflict with one another. So which ones have priority over the other? And who decides this?

When Jesus says, "love thy neighbor", doesn't this imply the importance of empathy?

Doesn't it become important to care for the other who is homosexual if one is going to be interacting with such a 'sinner' in a way that would otherwise harm this person? Doesn't the will of the 'sinner' matter? All that pain and misery in this situation of being different, considered by many to be wrong, yet to be right to the individual. And all along there is a divinity who sets the flag down, "No ambiguity here, perfection will be cemented, this is an absolute sin!". All along, it did not matter whether the 'sinner' provided the greatest of wisdom, reason, understanding, or even simple knowledge over the matter, it was all not good enough for the simplicity of perfection. None of the sinner's feelings or passions or experiences mattered against the illuminating intransitoriness of a monistic source of transcendence.

That all of the imperfections are abject and overruled... it is this inwardly focused nature that causes a lack of empathetic understanding, that which arises the difficulties in man to follow the "love thy neighbor" quote.
 
click here
 
Reply Tue 18 Aug, 2009 04:24 pm
@Holiday20310401,
xris;83971 wrote:
So could you answer the question,please..


Well you asked 2 questions. How do I decide what is "relevant" etc...? That should be taken on a case by case basis. I can't just type a complete answer to everything.

You also asked why Christ did not condone homosexuality. That is a poor question. He may have, and because everything he said was not written down we can not simply assume that he did not at one point (or many) condone homosexuality. Now I'm not trying to argue that he probably did and therefore homosexuality is wrong. I am simply pointing out that just because it is not written in the synoptic gospels doesn't mean it didn't happen. It's as if you were to ask, "Why didn't Jesus have a 6th birthday party with all his family?" Ummm.... Maybe he did, maybe he didn't I don't know but it isn't listed in the Bible.

Krumple;83992 wrote:
If you are using the bible as your source of morals then you are morally bankrupt.


Oh.

Krumple;83992 wrote:

How is it you ignore all the other injustice. Do you bash babies against rocks? It says you should do it in the bible. Do you stone disobedient children to death? It says you should in the bible.

Anyone who uses the bible as some moral basis and quotes passages where they get their morals from are completely ignoring the other phrases where it is absurd and barbaric. You can't just pick and choose your lines and say this is relevant and that line there is not.


You really shouldn't spout such lies off like that... Where does the Bible say that I, right now, in my daily life, should stone children to death?

You see your missing the point as well. We are NOT to stone children anymore BUT we do NOT APPROVE of bad behavior in children.
We do NOT kill homosexuals anymore BUT we do NOT APPROVE of their behavior.

The punishment for the action has changed but the views of the actions as wrong have not changed. If you would like to go on, please quote exact texts, we can take it one at a time for simplicity.

Lily;84008 wrote:

Yes, the desire to kill someone is wrong. But if to people love eachother, and want to have sex, but not have children, does it matter if it is two guy/girls or a girl and a guy?


Under your own moral judgments? Of course it is ok. Though whether your own moral judgments are correct is up in the air.

Lily;84008 wrote:

My heart is actually adapted to todays society. The Bible isn't. Have you ever considered that the Bible just might be totally wrong?

Why should the Bible be required to adapt to today's society? Maybe today's society is wrong and needs to adapt to the Bible.

Have you ever considered that the Bible just might be totally right? Come on, lets not play these pointless games.

Lily;84008 wrote:

The old one, from 1917. I'm from the west coast.

I only ask as I personally have lived some time in Sweden and was interested where you were from.

Lily;84008 wrote:

Paul isn't God. I just thought it was a bit funny.
What? Who says that I don't chose that? Being a christian is for like trying to love a guy who's really a jerk.


Not the best analogy...
Try this: All of your friends tell you that there is this guy whom you really should stay away from, they have all had bad experiences with him in one way or another. But you have never met him you have only heard things from people that you put your trust in. Then one day you meet this guy, you find out that all of your friends were wrong in their opinion of him. The guy explains to you that all of your friends would approach him and misunderstand him and instead of asking why they would just run off. Your parents and friends have probably all told you things to put you off of Christianity. But have you ever really looked deeply into it yourself? Or are you too afraid that you will get pulled into it unwillingly some how?


Holiday20310401;84092 wrote:
To reply to Matthew 5:28 I say, how could the heart sin? Shouldn't the concept of the heart be left to that which strives for 'good' intentions.

I do not see how sexual orientation could be governed by choice. It may not be completely biological, but it certainly starts there. The environment would probably play a role in who out of the selection of their sexual orientation they'd find more attractive.

I know homosexuals, many of them are depressed over their orientation. They'll complain to god over why they had to have a woman's desire in a man's body. The simple fact of the matter is they - can't - help - it.


You say that last sentence as if you know that to be a fact... hmm..

Have they ever considered therapy? There are plenty of stories of homosexuals attending therapy and breaking the addiction.

Holiday20310401;84092 wrote:

And why would god tell this person (through a text), well you're wrong. Homosexuality is wrong, bad, evil. Or more appropriately, how could any interpretation condemn moreso deterministic (as is pertinent) matters? What does that say of the interpreter? That's like denying reality. "This chunk of reality is wrong". "This chunk is right".

I have a question. When it comes to following the bible, and acting upon it's morals, I've noticed that many morals seem to conflict with one another. So which ones have priority over the other? And who decides this?

When Jesus says, "love thy neighbor", doesn't this imply the importance of empathy?


Doesn't it become important to care for the other who is homosexual if one is going to be interacting with such a 'sinner' in a way that would otherwise harm this person? Doesn't the will of the 'sinner' matter? All that pain and misery in this situation of being different, considered by many to be wrong, yet to be right to the individual. And all along there is a divinity who sets the flag down, "No ambiguity here, perfection will be cemented, this is an absolute sin!". All along, it did not matter whether the 'sinner' provided the greatest of wisdom, reason, understanding, or even simple knowledge over the matter, it was all not good enough for the simplicity of perfection. None of the sinner's feelings or passions or experiences mattered against the illuminating intransitoriness of a monistic source of transcendence.

That all of the imperfections are abject and overruled... it is this inwardly focused nature that causes a lack of empathetic understanding, that which arises the difficulties in man to follow the "love thy neighbor" quote.


"Love your neighbor" does not mean "excuse your neighbors actions."

I do not go around bashing homosexuals. As that would be rather hypocritical of myself. For homosexuality is a sin just like any other sin, the problem is they need to recognize that it is a sin.

If homosexuality is biological, then thankfully one day the gene will be eliminated from the gene pool, meaning homosexuality will be NON EXISTENT. Though that will never happen as it surely isn't biological, I sat at my high school lunch table with a girl who chose her orientation because she was abused by her uncle. Ask her yourself, she chose it. Never did I ever say to her, "Hey homosexuality is a sin!!!" Though hopefully through my actions she could come to me with questions not feeling as though she had to hold back.
 
Krumple
 
Reply Tue 18 Aug, 2009 04:50 pm
@SJoseph,
Quote:
You really shouldn't spout such lies off like that... Where does the Bible say that I, right now, in my daily life, should stone children to death?


Alright, so you are saying, the bible WAS relevant at a time, but now it no longer is relevant? I'll agree with you there, the bible is NO longer relevant.

Quote:

You see your missing the point as well. We are NOT to stone children anymore BUT we do NOT APPROVE of bad behavior in children.
We do NOT kill homosexuals anymore BUT we do NOT APPROVE of their behavior.


You want a pat on the back for not burning women accused of being witches? The ONLY reason you do not approve of homosexuality is because of your irrelevant bible.

But I'll let you have that one, but what I want to know is this. Disobedient children can have an effect on society through their behavior. Homosexuality does not harm anyone period. So why all the criticism against them wanting to be legally married?

It is ONE thing to not do it yourself, it is a completely different thing to tell someone else they are not allowed to because YOU don't approve. It is not hurting you at all.

Quote:

The punishment for the action has changed but the views of the actions as wrong have not changed. If you would like to go on, please quote exact texts, we can take it one at a time for simplicity.


You know what this parallels. Racism before the 1960s. This very statement is a reflection of that mindset. Oh we don't approve of their behavior and they should be killed for being who they are, but we are Christians and tolerant of others so we will be righteous and not kill them but still bash them and refuse them their rights.
 
click here
 
Reply Tue 18 Aug, 2009 07:29 pm
@Krumple,
Krumple;84174 wrote:
Alright, so you are saying, the bible WAS relevant at a time, but now it no longer is relevant? I'll agree with you there, the bible is NO longer relevant.


No I'm not saying that. I am saying that certain parts of the OT are not to be followed anymore. The ONLY reason we know that is because what the NT (actually some of the preceding OT should be taken into account) says! Not because we do not like what the OT says.


Krumple;84174 wrote:

You want a pat on the back for not burning women accused of being witches? The ONLY reason you do not approve of homosexuality is because of your irrelevant bible.


The ONLY reason that you approve of homosexuality is because of your influence from the society.... Ok those kinds of realizations get us no where buddy.

Krumple;84174 wrote:

But I'll let you have that one, but what I want to know is this. Disobedient children can have an effect on society through their behavior. Homosexuality does not harm anyone period. So why all the criticism against them wanting to be legally married?


Homosexuality certainly can harm a society in the same way that a disobedient child can. First off it helps to define what you consider harm. I would consider it harmful to my children's growth in this society to be influenced that homosexuality is a valid option in life. I do not want gay men being allowed into the same women's bathroom as my little 11 year old girl.

What comes after the approval of gay marriage? When the decision was being made in Sweden as to whether or not homosexual marriages should be sanctioned by the government one topic that did come up is what is next? Someone said that once the approval of gay marriage is completed the next thing will be polygamy, no one took that comment seriously. Well right after that, people came demanding polygamy.

How about abortion? Yes, when someone aborts their child is does not directly hurt me but I being a human am hurt to know that another human had their life viciously taken from them. When some random guy on the street is murdered, body chopped up into 100 pieces, and eaten by the man whom murdered him even after the man is sentenced to life in jail you still are disgusted by his actions even though it didn't and will not in the future hurt you. What is the guy gonna do? He can't get out of jail and hurt you as well yet you feel hate towards him. Stop the hate!!! He didn't do anything to you!!!


Krumple;84174 wrote:

It is ONE thing to not do it yourself, it is a completely different thing to tell someone else they are not allowed to because YOU don't approve. It is not hurting you at all.


What I said on abortion and murder applies here.


Krumple;84174 wrote:

You know what this parallels. Racism before the 1960s. This very statement is a reflection of that mindset. Oh we don't approve of their behavior and they should be killed for being who they are, but we are Christians and tolerant of others so we will be righteous and not kill them but still bash them and refuse them their rights.


Really? Are you really stooping to that level of debate? Choosing to associate me with a group that calls themselves Christians when I surely do not approve of their actions? Would you like me to think of an example that links you to a distasteful atheist group?
 
Krumple
 
Reply Tue 18 Aug, 2009 07:40 pm
@SJoseph,
Quote:
Originally Posted by Krumple http://www.philosophyforum.com/images/PHBlue/buttons/viewpost.gif
It is ONE thing to not do it yourself, it is a completely different thing to tell someone else they are not allowed to because YOU don't approve. It is not hurting you at all.



What I said on abortion and murder applies here.


Uh, no it does not apply. I was not talking about YOU being the one hurt, I was talking about being hurt in general. Homosexuality is in no way the same as murder or abortion. Murder is causing harm, homosexuality is not causing harm.

And since you brought up the abortion aspect. I am not a supporter of abortion just so you know. I am all about civil rights and I feel that it is a "right to life" issue not a religious one. As it appears, we only are given our right to life AFTER the umbilical cord is cut. But even that is a gray area because you rarely ever see very late term abortions. The statements generally are that it is considered a baby. So I guess there is a magical moment when you are handed your civil rights but no one can clearly tell me when that moment is.

If homosexuality is the equivalent to murder, then so is practicing Christianity.
 
click here
 
Reply Tue 18 Aug, 2009 07:45 pm
@Krumple,
Krumple;84209 wrote:
Uh, no it does not apply. I was not talking about YOU being the one hurt, I was talking about being hurt in general. Homosexuality is in no way the same as murder or abortion. Murder is causing harm, homosexuality is not causing harm.

And since you brought up the abortion aspect. I am not a supporter of abortion just so you know. I am all about civil rights and I feel that it is a "right to life" issue not a religious one. As it appears, we only are given our right to life AFTER the umbilical cord is cut. But even that is a gray area because you rarely ever see very late term abortions. The statements generally are that it is considered a baby. So I guess there is a magical moment when you are handed your civil rights but no one can clearly tell me when that moment is.

If homosexuality is the equivalent to murder, then so is practicing Christianity.


It is equivalent in that it causes psychological harm. Does abortion harm you? NO! So why are you against it? You think it is wrong, and I bet you still feel pang inside knowing that another child's life was taken. No?
 
Krumple
 
Reply Tue 18 Aug, 2009 08:03 pm
@SJoseph,
Quote:
It is equivalent in that it causes psychological harm. Does abortion harm you? NO! So why are you against it? You think it is wrong, and I bet you still feel pang inside knowing that another child's life was taken. No?


Do you think about anything?

When did I say it had to cause me harm for it to be considered bad? I said harm in general. Abortion does cause harm. So where do you get this question from when I already pointed out my position?

However I do realize that there is often a trade off. If abortion was made illegal there would be lots of women who would still get them, but through illegal means. Often times those illegal abortions end with the woman dying of some infection or botched job. So in reality no lives are ever saved. But are we REALLY talking about saving lives because if so, I think making driving a car should be made illegal before abortion because cars kill more people than abortions.
 
click here
 
Reply Tue 18 Aug, 2009 08:53 pm
@Krumple,
Krumple;84215 wrote:
Do you think about anything?

When did I say it had to cause me harm for it to be considered bad? I said harm in general. Abortion does cause harm. So where do you get this question from when I already pointed out my position?

However I do realize that there is often a trade off. If abortion was made illegal there would be lots of women who would still get them, but through illegal means. Often times those illegal abortions end with the woman dying of some infection or botched job. So in reality no lives are ever saved. But are we REALLY talking about saving lives because if so, I think making driving a car should be made illegal before abortion because cars kill more people than abortions.


Why does something have to cause physical harm for it to be bad?

How many cars driven each day cause the death of person?

How many abortions each day cause the death of a person?
 
Krumple
 
Reply Tue 18 Aug, 2009 09:01 pm
@SJoseph,
Quote:
Why does something have to cause physical harm for it to be bad?


Well because of two reasons. First emotional trauma is difficult to gauge and therefore in justice systems, the emotional damage clause tends to be ignored because it can't be easily quantified. Secondly just about everything causes some form of emotional trauma. If you really want to go down this road, there are dozens of things that would also need to be made illegal if emotional trauma is a considering basis for legality. Religion would be one of those things requiring banning if such were the case. I am not supporting a ban of any religion but we would have to if you want to use your argument.

Quote:

How many cars driven each day cause the death of person?

How many abortions each day cause the death of a person?


I don't know but my guess is the first is higher than the second.

car accident deaths > daily abortions
 
jgweed
 
Reply Tue 18 Aug, 2009 09:02 pm
@SJoseph,
If it's good enough for Sokrates, it's good enough for me.
 
click here
 
Reply Tue 18 Aug, 2009 09:08 pm
@Krumple,
Krumple;84226 wrote:
Well because of two reasons. First emotional trauma is difficult to gauge and therefore in justice systems, the emotional damage clause tends to be ignored because it can't be easily quantified. Secondly just about everything causes some form of emotional trauma. If you really want to go down this road, there are dozens of things that would also need to be made illegal if emotional trauma is a considering basis for legality. Religion would be one of those things requiring banning if such were the case. I am not supporting a ban of any religion but we would have to if you want to use your argument.


Only if you choose to assume that mental anguish associated with activities associated with my religion are justified. More or less you have to presuppose the lack of significance of my religion as a deciding factor as to what is 'wrong' / 'right' in this world.




Krumple;84226 wrote:

I don't know but my guess is the first is higher than the second.

car accident deaths > daily abortions


Find out the ratio. My guess is that most daily abortions are pretty successful resulting at a near 1 success ratio. The ratio between cars driven and deaths related to those cars driven would be considerably lower.

That really was an awful example. Just as if you were to say, "Well maybe we should ban hospitals, more people die in hospitals per day then in abortion clinics."
 
Holiday20310401
 
Reply Tue 18 Aug, 2009 09:10 pm
@click here,
click here;84170 wrote:

You also asked why Christ did not condone homosexuality. That is a poor question. He may have, and because everything he said was not written down we can not simply assume that he did not at one point (or many) condone homosexuality. Now I'm not trying to argue that he probably did and therefore homosexuality is wrong. I am simply pointing out that just because it is not written in the synoptic gospels doesn't mean it didn't happen. It's as if you were to ask, "Why didn't Jesus have a 6th birthday party with all his family?" Ummm.... Maybe he did, maybe he didn't I don't know but it isn't listed in the Bible.


Well then it is also feasible that God could have thought that which would transcend and contradict what he told men to write.



click here;84170 wrote:
You see your missing the point as well. We are NOT to stone children anymore BUT we do NOT APPROVE of bad behavior in children.
We do NOT kill homosexuals anymore BUT we do NOT APPROVE of their behavior.


Well I did not imply anywhere any connection about punishment, that's a whole other story. My problem is assuming it is bad behaviour.

click here;84170 wrote:
The punishment for the action has changed but the views of the actions as wrong have not changed. If you would like to go on, please quote exact texts, we can take it one at a time for simplicity.


Please tell me what God feels about punishment and how we ought to punish people.


click here;84170 wrote:
Have you ever considered that the Bible just might be totally right? Come on, lets not play these pointless games.


No thing can be totally 'right'.



click here;84170 wrote:
Not the best analogy...
Try this: All of your friends tell you that there is this guy whom you really should stay away from, they have all had bad experiences with him in one way or another. But you have never met him you have only heard things from people that you put your trust in. Then one day you meet this guy, you find out that all of your friends were wrong in their opinion of him. The guy explains to you that all of your friends would approach him and misunderstand him and instead of asking why they would just run off. Your parents and friends have probably all told you things to put you off of Christianity.


Actually my mom encourages christianity. You want to know what throws me off of christianity though? It's the human potential I've realized through reading literature and philosophy and news. It's just something one becomes aware of and eventually can intuit on his own, that there is silliness in theism. And eventually it looks like a game, like monopoly, a competitive forplay. And this monistic idea becomes a grain of sand, a pebble among the sands. That pebble which didn't want the complexity of all the other pebbles to exist.

To quote Isaac Newton, "I was like a boy playing on the sea-shore, and diverting myself now and then finding a smoother pebble or a prettier shell than ordinary, whilst the great ocean of truth lay all unidscovered before me" The concept of God is that pebble from my point of view.

click here;84170 wrote:
But have you ever really looked deeply into it yourself? Or are you too afraid that you will get pulled into it unwillingly some how?


Just because there is much content does not mean there is much that is actually to be looked into.


click here;84170 wrote:
You say that last sentence as if you know that to be a fact... hmm..


Well the fact is not an absolute, there is a difference. Better yet, just go and ask a homosexual's opinion for yourself.

click here;84170 wrote:
Have they ever considered therapy? There are plenty of stories of homosexuals attending therapy and breaking the addiction.


I bet it is also possible to do the other, to break the "addiction" of a straight person, while we go on pretending (in the hypothetical scenario) that the homosexuality were the norm. This could very well be just as possible. And perhaps therapy is not the best idea either. Sex change is just as reasonable to such people I'm sure in many instances.

And you say therapy when therapy is not the right word. There is nothing wrong to be fixed. Explain to me what is wrong for there to be a possible method of it being fixed.

Now this is not simply answered by "well therapy". No, I mean, when a person in an oddly natural? (I might add) way requires in his conscience, a why, an understanding, (because it is obvious that wisdom, and morality requires understanding and reason, and of course knowledge prior to its existence) in order for his morals and belief system to exist, how can his system be altered or affected in any way without the proper syntax used, meaning without further reason to justify such a change made to the system. So I ask, how could you get rid of inherent wrongness?

click here;84170 wrote:
"Love your neighbor" does not mean "excuse your neighbors actions."


Indeed. Love does not equate to comfort, nor does it equate to punishment.

click here;84170 wrote:
I do not go around bashing homosexuals. As that would be rather hypocritical of myself.


I assumed you would not do such rash things and still maintain priviledges to the internet.

click here;84170 wrote:
If homosexuality is biological, then thankfully one day the gene will be eliminated from the gene pool, meaning homosexuality will be NON EXISTENT. Though that will never happen as it surely isn't biological,


What will more likely happen is we will be able to manipulate the human body to negate the potential for homosexuality. Actually, in the future, we may even manipulate and engineer whole other abstracts for what love is, and can very well be.

click here;84170 wrote:
I sat at my high school lunch table with a girl who chose her orientation because she was abused by her uncle. Ask her yourself, she chose it. Never did I ever say to her, "Hey homosexuality is a sin!!!" Though hopefully through my actions she could come to me with questions not feeling as though she had to hold back.


I don't doubt that such a case happened and could happen to nearly anybody when it comes to abuse. But why would you want to fiddle around with her psychology and pathology any more, why tamper with it like her uncle did? This doesn't seem fair if such a method were forced upon her... against her will.... when it wasn't conflicting with the potential goodness in her heart.
 
Krumple
 
Reply Tue 18 Aug, 2009 09:26 pm
@SJoseph,
Quote:
Find out the ratio. My guess is that most daily abortions are pretty successful resulting at a near 1 success ratio. The ratio between cars driven and deaths related to those cars driven would be considerably lower.

That really was an awful example. Just as if you were to say, "Well maybe we should ban hospitals, more people die in hospitals per day then in abortion clinics."


Were we talking about frequency? I was talking about deaths in general. If you want to talk about frequency then you really are not talking about deaths at all but you are only focusing on how often the action occurs. So in other words if there were MORE abortions per day then it would be alright because the frequency of driving is much higher than women walking into clinics? Come on, are you serious?
 
click here
 
Reply Tue 18 Aug, 2009 09:39 pm
@Krumple,
Krumple;84237 wrote:
Were we talking about frequency? I was talking about deaths in general. If you want to talk about frequency then you really are not talking about deaths at all but you are only focusing on how often the action occurs. So in other words if there were MORE abortions per day then it would be alright because the frequency of driving is much higher than women walking into clinics? Come on, are you serious?


Huh? You were saying snidely that cars should be banned because they are more of a danger to society then abortion. One abortion per year would still be an unwanted number. Why does it matter that there are other ways that cause people death? I just don't know why you tried to make such an analogy.
 
Krumple
 
Reply Tue 18 Aug, 2009 09:57 pm
@SJoseph,
Quote:
Huh? You were saying snidely that cars should be banned because they are more of a danger to society then abortion. One abortion per year would still be an unwanted number. Why does it matter that there are other ways that cause people death? I just don't know why you tried to make such an analogy.


Trying to discover motivation. People make claims but typically the claims are to justify some other motivation or belief.

Is your stance that life is sacred and therefore it should not be aborted?

Is your stance that life is not sacred but it should not be aborted?

If you answer that abortion should not be allowed because life is precious then wouldn't you have to compare this to all actions in life? Therefore driving causes unnecessary fatalities so it would also have to be banned. Frequency of the action is not the issue otherwise it's only a matter of how often it is attempted and not about saving lives. So really you are saying life is not sacred but abortion is just bad because it's so successful. Driving would be bad, but people fail to kill themselves at it so much that it is acceptable.
 
Justin
 
Reply Tue 18 Aug, 2009 10:34 pm
@SJoseph,
Thread closed....
 
 

 
Copyright © 2019 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 06/16/2019 at 08:02:04