Thread: New law allows doctors to withhold information that may lead to abortions

Originally Posted by DixNickson

A possibility indeed.



Can we agree that a woman's body is designed to bear children? The womb is paramount to the child's welfare. Could the proof be in the design?

Perhaps your unrecognized beef is with nature's Creator for designing womankind with the physical and emotional structure for motherhood?

Lets not lower ourselves to naturalistic fallacy, or even worse, arguments based on theism.

Originally Posted by Cady

Does the design of a woman's body require her to be perpetually pregnant?

No a deliberate act is needed for pregnancy.

Is a woman's brain designed to make decisions, including those decisions regarding the use of her own body?

I've always understood that the brain is the body's CPU. But critical thinking is usually an acquired tool.

A woman's design doesn't obligate her to motherhood, and some women are unable to bear children, regardless of their design.

Well, if we are entrusted with a responsibility that we worked towards (during the reproductive act) or for, wouldn't that obligate us to embrace the conclusion to our choices and see that through? For women who cannot bear children (this happens to all women at some point in their life) pregnancy is most likely not a consideration. But you don't disagree that the female form is designed to carry the developing child for individual bloodlines and humankind's posterity?

Originally Posted by Blasphemer

Lets not lower ourselves to naturalistic fallacy, or even worse, arguments based on theism.

Not my intent at all. Would rather elevate or at least give props where due. We all know that skyscapers, surgery, computers, air and spacecraft etc. are natural phenomenon and due to evolution...certainly not evidence of creative thinking/critical timing design in any of that, so obviously our presence, the universe and our biosphere just happened too.

Some say that our screen name reveal something about us. Yours is one often associated with disrespect towards God and faith, thank you for such a civil correction. I'm a fan of the First Amendment too. You as I are welcome to practice and comment on our individual faith openly...how blessed we are to be included in the protection of the 1stA.

Originally Posted by churchmouse

Dix…I think she is an atheist which might explain everything.

Durp durp durp.

I could just as easily say "Churchmouse must be religious which would explain everything about her views" and provide a basis for understanding her irrationality.

Originally Posted by DixNickson

Not my intent at all. Would rather elevate or at least give props where due. We all know that skyscapers, surgery, computers, air and spacecraft etc. are natural phenomenon and due to evolution...certainly not evidence of creative thinking/critical timing design in any of that, so obviously our presence, the universe and our biosphere just happened too.

Some say that our screen name reveal something about us. Yours is one often associated with disrespect towards God and faith, thank you for such a civil correction. I'm a fan of the First Amendment too. You as I are welcome to practice and comment on our individual faith openly...how blessed we are to be included in the protection of the 1stA.

I think what she was getting at though, is that arguments based on a theist view of the world are disconnected from the reality we actually live in. There's no common ground here, especially when the discussion is between someone who believes in the bible and someone who does not. In order for a baseline to exist, it has to be irrefutable, based on reality. You can't do that with theoretical religious views.

It doesn't even have to be a religious view of the world, it can be anything theoretical, like Scientology for example.

I just don't see how you argue a question based entirely on the reality we live in(abortion) by using principles and ideas from a completely theoretical belief system based on unverifiable accounts that supposedly occurred thousands of years ago. I can understand and respect a person's belief in a deity and the bible, but I think you have to leave that at the door when you're going to be arguing about something that exists entirely in the tangible real world. Otherwise, it's not unlike me saying we don't need to use gasoline in our cars, we'll power em by prayer and goodness. I'm taking a realistic thing(a car), and trying to extend abstract theoretical ideas to it, and obviously, it doesn't work. Trying to power a car with prayer and goodness will only get you an expensive rather large lawn ornament.

Originally Posted by Junkieturtle

Durp durp durp.

I could just as easily say "Churchmouse must be religious which would explain everything about her views" and provide a basis for understanding her irrationality.

I am a religious person. I value my relationship with Christ, it comes before anything. ARe you a believer or not….your running.

Originally Posted by churchmouse

I am a religious person. I value my relationship with Christ, it comes before anything. ARe you a believer or not….your running.

You know my views, just as I know yours.

But I also know that both of our opinions on this particular angle of the issue are meaningless, because neither one of us can prove that our views are the correct ones when it comes to the existence or non-existence of a God, specifically the one outlined in the bible.

So when you said that her views must be because she's an atheist, I got to thinking that if that's the case, it's the position I'd trust more since it's not built on a foundation of irrationality and blind faith.

Originally Posted by Junkieturtle

I think what she was getting at though, is that arguments based on a theist view of the world are disconnected from the reality we actually live in. There's no common ground here, especially when the discussion is between someone who believes in the bible and someone who does not. In order for a baseline to exist, it has to be irrefutable, based on reality. You can't do that with theoretical religious views.

It doesn't even have to be a religious view of the world, it can be anything theoretical, like Scientology for example.

I just don't see how you argue a question based entirely on the reality we live in(abortion) by using principles and ideas from a completely theoretical belief system based on unverifiable accounts that supposedly occurred thousands of years ago. I can understand and respect a person's belief in a deity and the bible, but I think you have to leave that at the door when you're going to be arguing about something that exists entirely in the tangible real world. Otherwise, it's not unlike me saying we don't need to use gasoline in our cars, we'll power em by prayer and goodness. I'm taking a realistic thing(a car), and trying to extend abstract theoretical ideas to it, and obviously, it doesn't work. Trying to power a car with prayer and goodness will only get you an expensive rather large lawn ornament.

JT for the record the comment you quoted was in response to Blasp not Cady.

Much of our justice (crime and punishment) system is rooted in and drawn from the principles and ideals found in the Book you label unverifiable.

The standard I draw from anyone is at liberty to deny now. In fact to do so is quite fashionable in many worldly circles. Does your reality allow for absolutes or are things on a sliding scale?

Seriously asked, do you think there was such a place and time as Sodom and fire as recounted in the Holy Bible? Asked because of your reality/unverifiable reference. How about the plagues? How many years can pass before a historical event is recorded that would allow you to call it certified/verified/correct?

I'm not able to change anyone save me (with help) but sometimes the right question can lead us to an answer that allows us to see something previously beyond our sight. JT The Truth will set you free.

Originally Posted by Junkieturtle

You know my views, just as I know yours.

But I also know that both of our opinions on this particular angle of the issue are meaningless, because neither one of us can prove that our views are the correct ones when it comes to the existence or non-existence of a God, specifically the one outlined in the bible.

So when you said that her views must be because she's an atheist, I got to thinking that if that's the case, it's the position I'd trust more since it's not built on a foundation of irrationality and blind faith.

Well it may be blind faith to you but not to me because I see in the light. Christ is the light…and abortion is not light it is dark, it is death.

Originally Posted by churchmouse

Well it may be blind faith to you but not to me because I see in the light.

Please stop with these meaningless, vague sophistries. You can never explain any of this drivel so just stop using these nonsense to justify yourself.

Originally Posted by churchmouse

Christ is the light…and abortion is not light it is dark, it is death.

So what? Why is abortion "dark"? Why do you think abortion is wrong? God certainly doesn't. He's ordered abortions AND infanticide plenty of times.