Posts by Abaddon

posted

91
Which massacres did Jehovah sanction?
by Spectrum in
1. watchtower
2. beliefs
the ones i'm familiar with are from the repercussion of the rape and murder of the levites concubine.

judges 19-21 .

about 100,000 died in battle then all the towns of benjamin were put to the sword as were the people that didn't join in against the benjamites.
Abaddon

Hellrider
We'll just have to disagree on this I guess.
Law is made on facts.
You have yet to prove a early term fetus is anything like a born human in the ways that are seen as defining humanity, and now you tell me you don't even care about the scientific and medical side of the argument. I'd not have wasted my time if I'd known that was the case, as if you aren't going to pay attention to scientific and medical facts, to me the difference between the validity of your opinions and a religious one cannot be measured, nor can we reach a common ground.
You seem to think because you feel early terms fetus should not be aborted, the law should be changed.
Yet on the same basis, if people feel alcohol should be banned, it would be banned.
The facts of alcohol usage have led to the creation of a legal framework for is use, not the emotions or beliefs of individuals or groups.
Oh, let me correct that; groups have had the law on alcohol changed in the past to suit their emotions or beliefs, but they always get changed back to something more closely resembling what is supported by facts.
You still going to insist emotions are important in making law? Got any quotes by law makers?
I'll not ring round law schools to prove the law is normally based on emotion; why should I defend YOUR argument, such as it is? So far, all you've done is give your opinion, whilst I have cited facts that lie behind the law as it is, including documents prepared for Members of Parliament to inform them of facts they might have to know when considering the current law. If you claim law is based on individual's emotions (and exceptions do not prove rules), then it will be easy for you to prove this. But given the fact I've already shown facts are considered to lead (read the document I cited and tell me where it mentions emotions) the debate, I don't think you have much chance.
You keep on coming back to the word genocide. As with your insistence on emotions being important in drawing up law, maybe this is a linguistic thing, but when I correct you on the usage of Norwegian words, you can correct me on the usage of English ones. You've already admitted the use of genocide is a deliberate emotional ploy, yet jump right back into it.
You excuse the inconsistencies in your argument; mine is simple, no fully formed brain, no perception of pain, not the same.
You will cry concern for the unborn, and then would kill one if a woman is raped, and then lecture on greater good, ignoring the fact you now have destroyed your own stance. I can think of situations where a child born to a victim of rape would have a better start in life to one born to a woman who has been forced to give birth. You ignore this, but then as your arguement is emotional and not based on medical or scientific fact, this inconsistency is not surprising.
You've yet again indulged in circular argumentation, I ask 'what's the difference between forcing a woman to give birth and forcing her to get pregnant and you tell me the word used to describe non-consensual sex; thank you, I know. WHAT IS THE DIFFERENCE? Answer the question. In terms of violation of bodily rights and freewill, what is the difference?
As for the historical argument, I did bring it up but I was talking about your response;
it could be argued that she, by that choice, in some cases, have given up the rights over her own body for the next nine months.
I showed how this statement has noting to support if historically (in other words it is YOU saying because of YOUR opinion women should "in some cases, have given up the rights over her own body for the next nine months"). I however missed one of the clearest examples of the unreasoned and emotional nature of your argument;
People have always been wrong about everything, because they lived at a time when they didn`t anything about...anything (ha ha).
The missing word is obviously 'know'.
You say their beliefs were invalid because they didn't know anything about anything.
As you don't WANT to involve knowledge (medical, scientific), I have to apply the same logic you applied above to you;
Your argument is invalid because you don't want to base it on knowledge.
You are still perfectly free to have your opinion, and not to have an abortion, but then, you'll never have to... which makes your opinion very very easy to hold.
91
Which massacres did Jehovah sanction?
by Spectrum in
1. watchtower
2. beliefs
the ones i'm familiar with are from the repercussion of the rape and murder of the levites concubine.

judges 19-21 .

about 100,000 died in battle then all the towns of benjamin were put to the sword as were the people that didn't join in against the benjamites.
Abaddon
Hellrider
First of all, I have to protest in the way you have now decided to respond to my post. When I have a discussion with someone, I prefer to respond to each argument given by my opponent, not reduce the argument to a series of sentences, and then responding to each and every sentence. This is because by choosing the latter strategy, one can "answer" an argument without really answering it. Instead of responding to the argument as a whole, one simply breaks down the argument into sentences, sentences that, each on its own, doesn`t offer an argument anymore. It also makes it difficult to respond, because I don`t only have to respond to your counterarguments, I have to also add your sentences together into what I assume is your argument. As a result, this post will look a bit "weird".

Sorry, I was responding to points within your argument. I'll be less granular, although doing it the way I did is better for showing up inconsistencies in your argument.
So, here you are using a manmade definition of a word to argue against the use of this particular word. Ok, I don`t have any problem with that, apart from the fact that I don`t necessarily agree. Yes, "genocide" is "the deliberate and systematic destruction of a racial, political or cultural group". When speaking about abortion in that way, I assume Forscher was trying to make an "emotional" point. His use of the word was actually pretty good (other than the fact that it doesn`t follow the dictionarys definition), because it highlights the view of anti-abortionists, that a featus allready is a human being (yes, I know you don`t agree with that, but I`ll get to that later), and, when human beings a murdered on a massive scale, this could be called genocide. Furthermore, featuses could possibly be listed as a "political" group. They are a group that have no legal rights, compared to that of their "hosts".
Hellrider, all words have (hu)man made definitions!
1. We agree about genocide being a deliberately emotive but technically incorrect term to apply to abortion. Emotive arguments don't make the law, rational ones do.
2. And fetuses can't be a political group, they don't have the vote.
3. And without dealing with the medical and scientific argument about there being nothing equivalent to a born human at 16 weeks, you constantly use this equivalence as a running assumption. This is called a circular argument, it's a fallacious form of argument, without value. If you have a secular argument you must prove it with secular facts, not ignore secular facts so as to be able to carry on using that argument.
I am perfectly aware of what the law is, you don`t have to to explain the law to me. My point, and the point of other anti-abortionists, is that the law is wrong! The analogy "braindead after accident or illness" and "featus under 16 weeks" is also not necessarily a valid comparison. A braindead person has no chance of ever coming back to life, and this is what determines that one can "turn of the switch". A featus does have a chance not only "coming to life", it also has the potential to become an extremely intelligent person. This difference that I am highlighting here, is a the difference of potential, which is an important (ethical - and this is what it`s all about) factor in the minds of the doctors, when they have to make the ethical choice on whether or not to switch of the life-sustaining machine. Just for the record: I am not necessarily opposed to neither suicide nor assisted euthanasaia - although I see a lot of practical-ethical problems with the latter.
You are yet to explain to me using secular facts why the law is wrong. You repeat yourself, but provide facts? No.
You are using the 'potential' argument; I have already said I will consider that worth responding to when you can demonstrate we extract the maximum potential possible from those that are already born. To say 'don't abort the fetus, think of its potential' and not to say 'let's eliminate child poverty and social disadvantage, think of the potential' is to use the argument of potential only when it suits you. Inconsistent arguments are not logical. Logic and consistency make laws.
Of course! I would choose to save the one with the highest level of potential for life! (and of course, this is one very important ethical reason for being against abortion) This would, of course, be a choice in which someone would die as a result of my actions, but it would still not be unethical of me, because of the circumstances. In the same way, I see the necessity for an abortion in cases where a 14-yearold has been raped and made pregnant by her father (even though this is not the exact same situation as the one you described above, because one would have to actively try to kill a human being - the featus). Of course, in cases such as these, the father should be locked up and never get out.
Why don`t we allow "abortion" up until the age of three?...because it now looks like a human being?; I know that this last point might look a bit "over the edge". But look more closely: It is a valid comparison, as it proves a point:
If killing a fetus is wrong, it is inconsistent to kill a fetus that comes about through rape or incest, as it is still wrong. If one argues compassionately for the harm the mother would suffer bearing such a child, then one is actually agreeing with one end of the spectrum of social issues making people decide to abort. Again, inconsistent arguments don't make good laws.
Oh yes, I do have a point, and it is a valid comparison. First of all, a 16-week old featus is not a lump with just a "couple of grams of neural tissue". It is 11 cm long, weighs approximately 110 grams. It has developed facial features and hair growth. It moves around, starts sucking its thumb at this stage in the pregnancy, and mothers can even feel kicking as early as 16 weeks. Not that all of this is important (in defining when the featus is a "human", in my opinion, but I dislike that you keep referring to featuses at this stage has "just a couple of grams neural tissue". Of course they do, but not in comparison to a fullgrown individual, but in comparison to its own body-weight, which is just around 100 grams. When the featus has reflexes, kicks, sucks it thumbs, etc, this is a clear sign that there is (of course very little, but still) activity in that neural tissue and in those early stages of the brain. It is not just a "car with no engine"! And even if a three-yearolds brain is a thousand times larger, this doesn`t mean that it is filled with anything important...and that sounds harsh, but I`m trying to prove a point: What does "filled with anything important" mean? Absolutely nothing! It is not the level that the child has allready reached that is important, but this is exactly what the basis of your argument is!! If we were to follow your line of thinking, then who decides what leved of development has "human value"? It is not an invalid argument to claim (according to this line of thinking of yours) that a 3-yearold also has "limited value", because, well frankly, three-yearolds aren`t really that smart!
I am in error here; the details I gave were for 12 weeks. Sorry.
However, for the record, a adult rat of c. 400 grammes will have 2 grammes of brain. A 12 week fetus will have a brain less than 1.4 grammes in weight.
At 16 weeks the brain will be c. 10 grammes, about 1/40 th of the weight it will be at birth. This massive difference in weight is not the only factor to consider, as the brain is still massively undeveloped.
http://www.parliament.uk/post/pn094.pdf#search='fetal%20brain%20development%2016%20weeks'
See especially box 2
I note that you get bogged down in how human it looks, how it moves and reacts. Do we define humanity on the basis of appearance? No, we define humanity according to the qualities expressed due to the existence of our minds, which cannot exist in a brain of a 16 week-old fetus. As I said early (and as you seem to bear out), if 16 week-old fetuses had scales and were icky, abortion of a 16 week-old fetus would not be an issue.
Are we going to deny women the right to abort something which does not have the brain structure to support anything akin to humanity just because 16 week-old fetuses look like ickle tiny babies?
Of course 60% or so of fertilised eggs don`t implant. That has absolutely nothing to do with what we are discussing, because it is outside the limits of human morality and ethical behaviour. Man can`t stop natural processes at this level, nature is on its own, and decides for herself. Life is not "sacred" or with ethical value before it enters the realm of human influence and interaction.
Actually, man can stop natural processes (some forms of spontaneous abortion) at this sort of level, and do. The point I am making is you advocate denying women the right to end something which nature holds in no special regard. As I said earlier, if animals can 'choose' to abort if conditions don't suit birth, why can't women? Saying in response it is un-natural will just get you a list of how many un-natural things we do each day.
We allow politicians to make mistakes that kill thousands of born humans and vote them back into office. You seek to deny the women to end something that has none of the mental qualities we associate with humanity that might be the result of a mistake or accident. Can't you see the sexism, the inequality, the double standard, the illogical and unsupportable legal nature of the argument you make?
On the contrary. After twenty weeks, "nothing significant happens", other than a doubling of the weight. Hence, there is nothing more unethical (within your view) about aborting a featus in week...35 than in week 20. If you want to allow abortion up until week 16 (or 20?) - I see no reason why week 35 should not be allowed. There is no significant difference in the featus at week 35, other than that it`s bigger.
I didn't say this, and this shows you have some semi-magical basis for your opposition. You claim you have a secular argument, but it is an emotional one. My choice of twenty weeks as a hard limit for social abortions is precisely due to the completion of some parts of brain growth that mean abortion does become an ethical issue at this point. You feel, quite why you've not explained (although it looking like an ickle baby is obviously one factor) that ANY abortion is bad at any point (apart from rape or incest where suddenly the fetus can be aborted through no fault of its own). It's a feeling. Since when are feeling the basis of secular (as we are having a secular discussion) law?
It`s not the same, and it`s not a valid comparison. Deciding on when to set a limit for allowed killing and removal of a featus, is not the same as when you think it`s ok for your kid to start driving (16 or 18).
Some kids will be competent to drive at 14, some won't be at 20. We discriminate against those who could drive earlier than 18 because of those who wouldn't be, yet allow those who still won't be competent until 20 to drive for two years. Arbitrary lines exist everywhere. And you, without at one point proving your point (equivalence) are constantly using equivalence in your argument.
Ok, I get it. The body is the womans! And yes, of course, the man can refrain from having sex, if he doesn`t want the woman to have a child. But now, in saying that, you are now all of the sudden sidestepping the very basis for your arguments, that "sexuality is difficult" and "shit happens", and that, therefore, abortion should be legal. My point on this particular part of the issue, is that if a man suddenly has to take the responsibility if he gets a woman pregnant (and she decides to have it) - why doesn`t she have to also take responsibility for her actions? Your claim here is that "a man gives up the right to his cromosones once he goes to bed with a woman". I can agree with that, but only, and only if we can agree on that a woman, once she goes to bed with a man, possibly gives up the right to her womb for nine months. We are of course here talking about mutual consent and a combined decision not to use a condom, in all other cases than these, the responsibility will be laid on one and not the other). However, the point I made in my previous post, still stands, you didn`t give an effective counterargument on this one: That, if abortion is to be perfectly legal and not considered even the slightest unethical (which is your stand), AND the choice on whether or not the featus is to go fullterm ONLY lays on the woman (both these premises have to be in place), then a man can not be considered responsible in any way for neither the featus, the pregnancy or the born child. It is (or was, at a certain stage), after all, just a lump of cells with no more value than a mole or a wort, and she could have had gotten rid of it even by just taking a pill (abortion pills have made all this so much easier). If she decided to have it, just because of some ridicolous idea she had (I have no idea where that idea came from), that whatever she had growing in her belly actually had some value, then that`s her problem, not his, especially as he has no right to decide whether or not this featus is to be born or removed. So he definitely has no obligations to pay for it, if she decides to have that featus born as a baby.
"Ok, I get it. The body is the womans!" If you get it adjust your opinions to reflect this.
"if a man suddenly has to take the responsibility if he gets a woman pregnant"? There is no suddenly, this is no surprise to the man. Having sex CAN get women pregnant, even with ALL precautions. He cannot assume she will not have the baby, no matter what she says beforehand. You relieve men of their reproductive responsibility. They have a simple choice to avoid this risk, two in fact; no sex or sterilization. A man may feel it is unfair to have this responsibility when they don't have the right to demand any seed of their loins is carried until birth, but the alternative is allowing men to force women to give birth, which is legally unsupportable.
"When the woman made the choice to lay down with a man (perhaps she even initiated it, that does happen, you know...), it could be argued that she, by that choice, in some cases, have given up the rights over her own body for the next nine months." Again, brood-mare mentality.If you can force a woman to be pregnant. why not force a woman to get pregnant? Where's the difference Hellrider? I thought you said you got it was the woman's body? Nothing a court of law would support. You might FEEL that way, just like some people BELIEVE homosexuals should be punished, but FEELINGS and BELIEFS are not the basis of secular law.
Well, there`s at least two things wrong with that statement. First: Is legal abortion the foremost trait of a free society? If it has restrictions on abortion, can`t it then be considered a free society anymore? I assume you are referring to certain elements on the right, who wear stupid suits and wests and go to church a lot, and think aids is Gods punishment for homosexuals. Yes, many (most?) of the people who are opposed to abortion, are in this group, perhaps especially in the U.S. But just because I certain group that we (me too) dislike, happen to mean something that I feel is right (on this one issue) - then should I not go along with what I think is right, just because I don`t like these people? Believe me, if these people (who dislike abortion, just like me) try to touch porn, alchohol or homosexuals, then I`ll be right up there on the barricades with you (and if they try to outlaw my beer, I`ll probably be armed! ).
IF abortion is made illegal due to religion 'X's attitude toward abortion (rather than a secular argument), as I say, bye bye secular society. You misrepresent my argument; I am not linking abortion to a free society, but the imposition of religious law as the end of secular society. And if you allow them to get a religious law imposed on the country because it suits your OPINION (you've yet to show your feelings about abortion would matter in a court of law ruling on whether it is 'right' or not), then you had better buy that gun, as they will come for your beer at some point.
What`s much more important with the statement you made above though, is that you seem to care little about what is right, but a whole lot more about the overall development of a society. I think, and feel, in the exact opposite way. I don`t care which group means what about anything, I just always go along with what I feel is right (which makes it extremely hard for me to give my vote to any political party, btw). Basically, you`re above argument is saying that "whether or not abortion is ethical or not, it is a typical trait of a free, progressive and liberal society, so it should be allowed". Or...?
I object to that. I have made it clear throughout this I feel abortion is right. To then claim I don't care about what is right is misrepresentation of my argument; like calling abortion genocide. Don't do that. Get your head around the fact that what you FEEL is right is different from what can be proven to be WRONG in law. You want your FEELINGS imposed on others, just as some religious people want their BELIEFS imposed on others. In a secular society neither a a valid basis for infringing the freedom of others - and don't immediately use a counter argument using a claim of equivalence when you are yet to prove this.
Historically, I don`t give a shit what people thought, believed, felt, ate, drank or smoked 2000, 1000 or 100 years ago. People have always been wrong about everything, because they lived at a time when they didn`t anything about...anything (ha ha).The point is: It is irrelevant how abortion has been viewed down thruout history. In my country, unwanted babies (unwanted because they were disfigured, missing a finger or were girls...) were put out in the woods to die (before christianity, you know back when we raped, murdered and pillaged Europe ). That doesn`t make it right. As for abortion, and why it hasn`t been discussed historically in, for example, the religious books (or any other books), I think I could very easily explain why this is the case (but I don`t have time now).
So the minute an argument you used is shown invalid, you don't give a shit about it? You immediately jump from intellectual slipperiness (dumping an argument you used (the validity of historical cultural wrong)) when it's shown to be an invalid argument, in fact, one that supports my stance NOT yours, to irrelevance (infanticide is not abortion; again you use equivalence in your argument without ever having proved it, just like Creationists use the Flood in their arguments without ever having proved it) to evasion ("I think I could... etc.).
You keep referring to christianity, as if you have some underlying belief that anyone who are against abortion, automatically have to be christians, even when you are discussing this with me! Why is that? Nothing could be further from the truth! I am not a christian! I was born and raised a JW, but I have rejected that moronic faith years ago, when I was 17. I believe Jesus lived and that he was a smart and good man, but I don`t believe he was sent by God (or that God even exists), or that he was raised by the dead, or something like that. On the other hand, I am not an atheist, I`m just your average agnostic. But in all my discussion with you or anyone else on this issue, I would never bring God or christianity into it. I see God, Jeeeezus, christianity and the Bible as not only redundant when it comes to ethical questions, but an obstacle.
You seem to feel there is no chance growing up in a Christian culture that your attitudes have been influenced by that culture. Ha! The comment about the scriptural argument was a general one, not specifically to you. However, the fact that some Christian's mistaken attitude toward abortion makes them BELIEVE it is wrong (but not in a way that can be proved in a secular court) is very similar to how you FEEL abortion is wrong (as is your right), but not in a way that can be proved in a secular court.
Forscher
Could you please prove to me scripturally abortion is wrong? I believe it is a prohibition made up by Christians, not one coming from the Bible.
58
Creatiolution. This could be the answer.
by Spectrum in
1. watchtower
2. beliefs
this is a continuation of a discussion i've had with abaddon.

we were at loggerheads in the beginning but i'm coming round to his way of thinking to a certain extent.

i still haven't given up my belief in an intelligent creator but at the same time there is evidence for evolution which cannot be discounted.
Abaddon

hooberus
Now, I see you have been responding to old posts, in full knowledge these will be so far off my page of threads responded to I will never be aware of them unless you tell me. My, you must have looked forward to springing that one me. LOL.
No response about AiG? I can't see what you CAN say, credibly, so maybe that explains the silence.
I criticised the salary Ken Ham awards himself.
You, having read the salary was not part of the start rating system, quote the star rating system.
Clever. Considering I have criticised Creationists and ID-ers for failing to disclose all the pertinent facts when presenting an arguement, I'n not suprised you follow similary shoddy parctice yourself.
... but will you now make some comment about how you consider someone in a non-profit organisation paying themselves TWICE the average is justified? You endorse that website through your slavish devotion to it, so I expect you to defend it.
As you do me when I use talkorigins. Thing is, you misrepresent the situation.
In the thread http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/12/102274/1.ashx which basically has only been responded to by Creationists in the past two months, in your post http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/12/102274/1810325/post.ashx#1810325 you say "see especially the third" when refering to some links. Okay then. If we look at that http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/15/92593/1566935/post.ashx#1566935, it is a post of yours I HAVE ALREADY RESPONDED TO OVER HALF A YEAR AGO.
Why not mention this hooberus? Why ALWAYS is there something you forget to add?
Just as the ID debate is falsely presented as a controvery in the scientific community, so to you falsely present something as though it hadn't be responded to over six months ago. Just like you 'forget' to mention the three star charity rating is nothing to do with Ken Ham's excessive salary, when that was the topic you were responding to...
And let us not forget that the Dover School trial found the behaviour and conduct of those trying to insert ID into the curriculum as being deficient and unbecoming of people in postions of authority.
Anyone see a pattern here?
Let's see what other games you are playing.
In http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/12/102274/6.ashx you claim;
The claim that the radioactive decay of other isotopes (such as unranium) in rocks could produce the quantities of 14C observed has been discussed by the afore mentioned Los Alamos scientist (now with ICR) as being thousands of times to low at current rates to account for the data.
I'd read http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/c14.html if I were you.
You state "I believe [the paper was] also reviewed by other scientists for publication at an ICC conference well.".
Having a creationist paper reviewed by creationists is like having a nazi revisonist history of the Holocaust reviewed by nazi revisonists. It means nothing.
Nazi revisonists work on the presupposition that Hitler was a nice bloke, stroked kittens, etc., and any Jews who died in the war obviously were to blame for it, not that many did (empty villages and masses of proof from records of millions just disappearing is not evidence enough for someopne who's already decided they are right. Them agreeing with a book that agrees with them means nothing.
Likewise, creationists work on the presupposition that god created everything, and masses of supporting evidence for evolution is not evidence enough for someone who's already decided they are right. Them agreeing with a book that agrees with them means nothing.
Scientists read a theory and then try to break it, and if the scientist presenting the theory has missed a way of breaking the theory they should have picked up on before claioming they had a theory, their credibility suffers. Thus peer review, instead of being 'Ha! I've always said that! The man's a genius!' is 'Well, I can't break the theory so it's probably factual given what we know know'. Them agreeing with a book that agrees with them means they can't break the theory
I could go on about how, once again, despite clear proof there were flourishing civilisations (and trees) at the Biblically specified period for the Flood which were unaffeceted by it and which left builidings hundreds of years older than the date of the Flood standing (as well as trees), you pretend the Flood is even possible. And most of the references you quote (like http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2002/carbon_dating.asp) are sufficently incompetent to use the assumed FACT of the Flood being real as an explanation for how somethings are, when of course the Flood is not proven.
This is like assuming that because you believe in the tooth fairy, the money under the pilloow could only get there through the auspices of the tooth fairy.
But there seems little point as you will carry on doing your "Emperor's new clothes" routine, just as you have done for years.
So, going to comment about Ham's salary now?
Oh, are you actually admitting you do carry out ad hom attacks against the scientific community as I stated in my last post? You don't deny it (not that you could - I could easily find you doing it as I specified).
Oh, any word on that rebuttal of dendrochronology (not the AiG rubbish I trashed one lunch break, something decent) you were going to provide, or will it be more excuses?
I'm sure I've also asked you for a comment about Behe admitting in court that under his defintion of 'theory' astrology would have to be given a place in the science curriculum alongside ID? Or his consession that under standard definitons ID was at most a hypothesis?
I know I've mentioned recently how irreducable design is a dead duck, as claims (for example, the flagellum one) about irreducable complexity fail under serious scientific scrutiny, as the sub components function and have use seperately.
Funny, I saw Behe on the steps of Dover court house, and he MUST suffer from a bad memory, as he had just seen his 'irreducable complexity' hypothesis rubbished in an open court, and yet was claiming it was right (when the evidence was probvably still being projected onto the courthouse wall). Do you think he maybe was hoiping that most of his supporters would just see that bit, and not see the way his postion was dismantled in court by proper scientists?
That way he can carry on making those claims and they'd never be the wiser. Come to think of it, he didn't mention what he had to admit to in an Australian court during the Dover trial... maybe his poor memory explains his poor science?
And that is an acusation with evidence (oh, okay, a bit of sarcasm), not an ad hom. Calling someone 'forgetful' when they are is not an ad hom if it pertains to the nature of their argument.
Any comment hooberus, or are you going to forget about this thread?
91
Which massacres did Jehovah sanction?
by Spectrum in
1. watchtower
2. beliefs
the ones i'm familiar with are from the repercussion of the rape and murder of the levites concubine.

judges 19-21 .

about 100,000 died in battle then all the towns of benjamin were put to the sword as were the people that didn't join in against the benjamites.
Abaddon

Spectrum
there is nothing equal about a woman telling the father of a child that he cannot have his child

WHAT child? At the stage she can legally abort there is legally no child and medically no equivalence to a child. There is only 'a child' if you subscribe to magical thinking or superstitcion. She's telling him he'll have to get another woman to carry a child to term. There is no 'child'.
And what is equal about a man forcing a woman to have a child? There is no measurable risk of a man dying because a woman aborts his child. There is a measurable risk of a woman dying from being forced to give birth. The woman is at a disadvantage, but apparently that's okay
Come on man, you can think better than that.
"Shoot me"
Nah, then who will lambast me when they don't agree with me
At least I don't traduce you, LOL
Is that funny as in strange or as in that's funny laugh, laugh.
Funny as in 'oooo! Consistent! LOL'
91
Which massacres did Jehovah sanction?
by Spectrum in
1. watchtower
2. beliefs
the ones i'm familiar with are from the repercussion of the rape and murder of the levites concubine.

judges 19-21 .

about 100,000 died in battle then all the towns of benjamin were put to the sword as were the people that didn't join in against the benjamites.
Abaddon

Hellrider
Our opinons differ in mine are backed by facts. So far your claim for equivalence is suppostion and assertion; that's not how law is made, if law is a measure of right and wrong.
What is a genocide?
":the deliberate and systematic destruction of a racial, political, or cultural group"
How many victims does it take to be a genocide? More than 100? 1000? 10 000?
There is no quanta involved. But fetuses are not a 'racial, political, or cultural group'.
You can still disapprove of it until the cows come home. But using loaded language to try and make an emotional point (even if inadevertently - genocide = Hitler thus calling abortion is genocide has implications especially as abortion ISN'T genocide) is just not going to work.
As for the featuses under 12 weeks: What has the development of the brain to do with anything?
Because people are legally terminated when their brains stop working, so why is it wrong to legally terminate them BEFORE their brains start working.
Is that where you set the line for human value? Why?
If you had to chose between saving a person with a functioning brain and someone in PVS in a fire, you would choose the person with the functioning brain. If you were in a foxhole, and one buddy had a leg wound, and the other had a serious head wound, had non-responsive pupils, but was still respiring, and you could only get one to safety, you'd choose the guy with the head wound. That's why. You would set such a line for human value yourself using the self-same criteria. I don't mind you being inconsistent in this regard as far as abortion goes, but I do have to point out the inconsistency.
The truth is, a child has no sense of selfconsciousness, no sense of a self, until it is about three years old!
I said "at such an early point there is no risk of anything sentient, self-aware or in any way concious being killed". A 16-week old fetus doesn't have the neurological structures to allow these things. It can't even feel pain yet, the 'wiring' isn't complete . A new born does, can feel pain and suffer, even if in psychological terms it has several stages of the development of awareness of self and others to go through in the next few years.
Why don`t we allow "abortion" up until the age of three?...because it now looks like a human being? I know that this last point might look a bit "over the edge". But look more closely: It is a valid comparison, as it proves a point:
A 16-week old fetus has a couple of grammes of nerve tissue ... a three year old's brain is, what, a thousands of times larger? You don't have a point. You are effectively saying a car with no engine has the same worth as a car with an engine. I know you don't like abortion, and you don't have to, but let's not use emotional and invalid comparisons.
If human value is to be determined by the stages in the individuals development (physical, mental, etc), then there is really no logical (!!!) reason why 12 weeks should be the limit, because it is we who set those boundaries for what stage in the physical and mental development that actually has value. There is really nothing more logical about setting that limit to a stage before a certain amount of brain and/or neurological system has been developed, than setting it at a point after the brain/neurological system has developed. It is all a matter of the beliefs/values of whoever sets the limit! As for me, I see the moral and ethical problems in setting such a limit at all.
The alternative is silly; 60% or so of fertilised eggs don't implant, more spontaneously abort. There is nothing sacred or special going on, even though something very special can happen. But special things can happen all the time and don't. To outlaw early term abortions is to make a concious decison of less worth than biological statistics. As once a fetus hits twenty weeks it 'stops' developing (lots of things to develop further but everything is more or less there), it doubles weight in the next, what? four weeks (from 300g to 600g) about where the 'line' should be is pretty obvious for social abortions.
Yes, it is an artificial line. So it the age-of-concent, the age you can drive, the age you can drink, the age you can buy porn, inlist in the army, be executed... you get the idea.
We all KNOW those lines are arbitary and sometimes get it wrong - in the case of joining the army, execution or driving people can die. But we set them, all the same.
Why is it so important in THIS instance, in the early stare of pregnancy where most fertilised eggs don't make it, where the fetus isn't neurologicaly developed, is it so important we say 'oh, can't draw a line, so you can't do it at all'?
Why especially so when it invades on the rights of what cannot be disputed to be a full human being?
I`m not sure which passage in your/mine posts you are referring to, but could it be this?:
Where I compare forcing a woman to carry a child as a form of slavery, treating her like chattel, a broodmare. Turns her into a thing. I'm pretty sure that is violates her rights.
C) Anyway, I`ll respond to it: I disagree, because with this statement you are basically justifying the actions of ever man that, after being told by a woman that she`s carrying his baby, just sighs and says "well, that`s your problem. ... Now sod off!"
No I am not. How do you stop that anyway? Different subject. I am allowing a woman who gets pregnant and does not want to carry a child to abort. Giving men a right to FORCE a women legally to carry a child is sheer madness, as per above.
The reasons for this, is: If a man has no rights, how can he have any responsibilities?
He can refrain from sex if he doesn't want the risk that a woman will exercise her right and have a child (of his) she is carrying. That is his right. If he waives his right not to take that risk, he has to take the responsibility of helping her support a child which he knew was a possible concequence of having sex.
The alternative is basing the legal system around penises. Which it kind of is anyway.
Anyway, the fact is that everything we do in life has consequenses.
I knew we would agree.
How would forcing a woman to take care of her (allready born) children (at least for a few months, until there is room at the orphanage) NOT reduce her to a slave?
Any mother can be totally delinquent in her responsiblities, just like guys can.
There might not be much choice, but there is choice - I think we'll agree with that, just like we do about conseuences.
You fail to understand the view of the anti-abortionists. This is not the issue for them. Their issue, is that a featus has the same human value as a human that has allready been born.
Oh, I realise the paradigms are incompatable. I said so at the begining; if someone belives a little divine spark is in every sperm and egg (a big hello to traditional RC's!), or it appears when an egg is fertilised, we ain't ever gonna have a common ground.
The day a court allows this to be the arguement that makes abortion wrong is the begining of the end of secular society in a country. I think evolution and homosexuals would be next on the hit list. What then? Porn? Drinking? Ooooweee!
I don't think many secular people want to go there.
Now of course, secular people can oppose abortion just like some religious people can support the right to it.
There are very sound secular reasons (legal and scientific, let alone social ones) why early term abortion is allowed. You don't have to like it or do it. But to support those that would take that right away for religious reasons, when abortion cannot be proven 'wrong' in the logical terms a court of law would hopefully apply, well... it's risky.
If you start allowing things that are logically okay to be illegal because you don't like them, what are you going to do when someone forces their equivalently illogical opinion into law?
It is,in their minds, protesting against the slaughter of innocent babies, not just a removal of a lump of cells. You think it`s ok to go marching in parades against the Iraq-war, don`t you?
Like I say, I geddit, you're right about their POV.
Irrelevant. People in ancient times also used to burn children alive to please gods like Ba`al, and they`d even stab their children to death to please Yahweh. That doesn` t make it right.
But, if in secular terms, a born child is not equivalent to an early term fetus, that's hardly the point in a secular discussion? I just love adding in the bit about the Bible not prohibitting abortion specifically, as (in additon to being true) I am fascinated by how Christians react to this at times.
But that`s not the point. The point is whether or not it is ethical (!!!!!!!!!!!!!) for her to do this! - and also whether or not it is ethical to prevent a woman (who would like to do this) from doing it, by terms of law.
We agree.
You like to discuss this on legal and secular grounds, but that is impossible and completely meaningless!
One could say the same is true of the age of consent, drinking age, etc.
This IS, was and always will be, an ethical question!
The same is true of the age of consent, drinking age, etc.
When the woman made the choice to lay down with a man (perhaps she even initiated it, that does happen, you know...), it could be argued that she, by that choice, in some cases, have given up the rights over her own body for the next nine months.
Not historically. Historically murder has been a wrong. Likewise rape. Abortion has not been regarded the same as murder through history; only where religions have dictated otherwise has it been prohibited, and even then is often considered a lesser crime, or none at all if done early.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_abortion
Due to a misinterpretation of scripture, or an elboration and extension of actual Biblical law (which we know all about), some Christians feel it is equivalent to murder.
But this, unlike attitudes to murder, is a historical quirk, and not even supported by their Holy Book.
I've hoped some such Christian would try to approach it from the scriptual angle, as at least that allows some hope of understanding or agreement to disagree.
Spectrum
If wanting women to have equal rights in practise and law is being a feminist, I'm a feminist. Shoot me.
Why are blonde jokes so stupid?
So men will understand them...
As for PC, hell, when I get going I can be so un-PC you'd think I was in King Kong, unless you listened long enough to realise I am very equal opportunities when it comes to scathing humour. I just thought given the thread we, er got to know each other on, was about racism, seeing you do a thread on blonde jokes was well funny, but I didn't see any reason to piss on your party.
58
Creatiolution. This could be the answer.
by Spectrum in
1. watchtower
2. beliefs
this is a continuation of a discussion i've had with abaddon.

we were at loggerheads in the beginning but i'm coming round to his way of thinking to a certain extent.

i still haven't given up my belief in an intelligent creator but at the same time there is evidence for evolution which cannot be discounted.
Abaddon
hooberus
it should be noted that AiG was given a 3 star rating (out of 4 possible) by Charity Navigator- thus hardly a "scheme."
hooberus, the Wiki points out that the salary of executives is NOT included in the star rating system, thus Ken Ham paying himself TWICE the rate of a non-profit CEO CANNOT reduce the star rating AiG receives.
You knew this, it was in the article, yet you don't mention it in defending AiG. This is deceptive, but play in the mud (AiG) and you get dirty I suppose...
As for the link you provide to counter my assertions about AiG, this does not in any way do this. You have done this before, using the exact same link. If one follows that link and scrolls down from your defense of AiG you will find the following comment from me;
(I replace hooberus's selection of pages or posts within a thread with the first page of the thread. I am sure he would not want to create a false impression of whether something had been successfully rebutted by directing people to parts of the thread that might give this impression when the entire thread is far more illuminating in this regard.)
I can't believe you consider THAT a rebuttal, especially as you bailed on the thread (again). A successful rebuttal is not just replying. A successful rebuttal is showing you are right, which you signally do not do.
You even conceded on that thread that there should have been links from the articles I attacked to the correspondence. AiG, in two separate articles, makes much of what it claims is a sample containing wood. They make no mention what-so-ever in these articles that the identity of the material in the sample is disputed by the very people who analysed it for them; they use part of the analysis but don't mention the part of the analysis that would rubbish the claims they want to make. This is unprofessional, deceptive (even if unintentional) and typical of that website.
http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/12/97209/1.ashx
Now this is a hysterical; a petulant whine about how the evil evolutionary establishment silence the clear truth of the ID/Creationist hero. I urge anyone who gives a damn to read this thread as its a delightful illustration of how Creationists would expect plumbers to competently transplant body organs. It also shows the tactics used, either out of cynical intentional deceit or sheer incompetence, by Creationists and ID-ots in defending their beliefs. And YOU think it's a successful rebuttal? Let the reader use discernment and decide exactly how reliable the judgement of someone who would reach that conclusion might be.
http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/12/74371/1200785/post.ashx#1200785
Thread: http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/12/74371/1.ashx
Abaddon: http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/12/74371/1200867/post.ashx#1200867
Another instance where your self-deception reaches effulgent heights. People may read the thread, or hooberus's post and my reply to it. Either will clearly show that no successful rebuttal is made and anyone who made this claim was either gambling on no one actually reading the link he'd provided, or a sandwich short of a picnic.
Others as well are more of a demonstration of ignorance on your part rather than "dishonesty" or ; "incompetence" etc. the part of AiG. Take for example your accusations regarding radiocarbon dating (on the thread located at:
http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/6/100566/1735328/post.ashx#1735328 )
Your C14 comments beginning with: "Sadly this behaviour continues; . . ." and finishing with: "This is either deliberately misleading or a sign of lack of competence in even the most basic knowledge of radiocarbon dating" regarded the following in the below AiG arcticle:
Oh dear hoberus, now you're being sloppy. First of all this is just idiotic C & Ping. If you had read my post you would be able to say SPECIFICALLY what was in error in it. Instead you simply post the very article I take apart. So, a simple version for your benefit; any ignorance is not on my part. AiG say;
However, the Flood buried large quantities of organic matter containing the common carbon isotope, 12C, so the 14C/12C ratio would rise after the Flood, because 14C is produced from nitrogen, not carbon. These factors mean that early post-Flood wood would look older than it really is and the ‘carbon clock’ is not linear in this period.
As anyone who reads the link to my original post can see, I point out the stunning level of incompetence or deception displayed by someone making the above claim you quote.
They completely forget that the "large quantities of organic matter containing the common carbon isotope, 12C", would also contain (because it was ORGANIC matter) C14, and that thus there would be no change in "14C/12C ratio".
The entire article also seems to think that C14 is ONLY produced in the atmosphere (wrong).
And, as usual, you ignore the fact the Flood DIDN'T happen.
Trotting up and down asking for people to complement you on your trousers when you have none... it's funny.
I have shown that there is ample, reliable biological, radiological, and archaeological evidence indicating a literal interpretation of Genesis and the Flood account are by definition wrong, as trees were growing and Pyramids basking in the Egyptian sun before, during and after the supposed dates of the Flood. There's scads of more 'didn't happen' evidence too, and NO evidence that it DID happen.
Despite having failed to refute this evidence (if you spent as much time trying to refute it as blaming me for you not refuting it you could have a half-decent attempt at refuting it, but no, it's my fault you can't refute it obviously, god's truth has to hide because you're thin skinned apparently), you carry on IGNORING it and making claims BASED ON IT HAPPENING.
This supposed back-up to your claims; http://www.icr.org/pdf/research/RATE_ICC_Baumgardner.pdf simply compounds this error from the abstract onward. It assumes the Flood to be fact throughout, when THERE IS NO PROOF. Is there any surprise this is a Creationist-only, non-peer reviewed paper? No.
And it also, either out of sheer ignorance or the desire to deceive, ignores the fact that the simple explanation for very small amounts of C14 in any sample is C14 is NOT JUST PRODUCED IN THE ATMOSPHERE. I see no reason to illuminate you as to the process, or as to why this would be a variable rather than a constant as regards its effects on fossils, or to tell you whether it is a contaminant or something ingrained in the structure of the fossil, as you obviously don't know, and this further illustrates the point I continually make.
Quite frankly, given the scale of error you show in the above, I won't bother with your vague claim;
Furthermore, what about the errors on your own preferred site (talkorigins) ? Here are some from a "must read" talkorigins arcticle:
.. about these links;
http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/15/92593/1564222/post.ashx#1564222
http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/15/92593/1566934/post.ashx#1566934
http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/15/92593/1566935/post.ashx#1566935
... until you actually specify what they are. As you notice, I say AiG is a pile of donkey poo AND GIVE EXAMPLES WHY IN DETAIL. Please, with your great knowledge of evolutionary science and biology, say what specific Talk Origins articles are in error and why. Wouldn't want you to be an empty vessel and clashing cymbal now, would we?
You are claiming you have succesfully defended AiG when you have not done so in any credible fashion. Why do you persist in the use of such a disreputable site? It's like using www.stormfront.com/nazi/bastard.htm to research the Holocaust. Where the hell are your standards, or is the appearance of being right more important?
I have a copy of a 2002 college biology textbook, that places at least some stages of certain abiogenesis scenarios in water and under obvious sunlight. Furthermore, other factors that I listed (such as hydrolysis) apply to other abiogenesis (besides UV) scenarios as well (such as ocean hydrothermal vents).
What are the most credible theories regarding abiogenesis right now hooberus? What? Don't you know?
So then why don't you provide us some statistical evidence against various types of hypothetical Intelligent Designers?
Okay.
1. People say the toothfairy leaves money under pillow in exchange for teeth. People find money under pillows.
2. People say god made the world. They look out the window and see the world.
3. Number of times such entities have been observed (not inferred) in a scientifically acceptable fashion = 0
4. Likelihood of intelligent design or altruistic dental entities is therefore 0.
LOL
No hooberus, it is for you to prove the toothfairy exists. I can't believe you're trying to get us to prove something doesn't exist when you know that one cannot prove something doesn't exist.
Someone such as yourself who has in the past on this forum defended the "presupposition" statement that "Even if all the data point to an intelligent designer, such an hypothesis is excluded from science because it is not naturalistic"
All the data does NOT point to an intelligent designer. If it did, as it would be DATA, i.e. EVIDENCE, then an intelligent designer WOULD be naturalistic, as naturalistic events are evidential in nature. But half your belief system is built on bad quotes, so why be surprised?
I used to believe all the poppycock that ID-ers and Creationists believe in. I then examined the evidence properly. This is why I know all your little counter arguments; they are the ones I used to use, in many many cases. I Lent enough and was open minded enough to accept what rubbish they were to someone who didn't start with the assumption there was a god (which I did start with). Of course, you will no doubt ad hom the reasons for me making this discovery, rather than engaging in a debate on the evidence, as the evidence doesn't matter to you.
Whatever a reasonable interpretation of the evidence suggests, you would insist it happened just like the goatherd said it did.
And time and time again you stoop to character assassination.
When a scientist effectively says;
'Science is based on evidence and method, claims of god do not provide evidence and fail to be validated under the scrutiny of scientific methodology, therefore using god as an explanation in science is invalid as god is unscientific'.
... you make out there is equivalency between that logical stance, and your presuppositions.
Because of where you were born and how your life turned out, you decided (without any clear reliable proof) that the Holy Book of your culture REALLY IS inspired (ignoring you'd have done the same to the Hindi holy writings if you were born in Bangalore, and have had the same inability to prove your belief) and right about everything.
This is not the same as a scientist saying 'real things have evidence, things that are not real do not have evidence, therefore god is unreal, at least in scientific considerations'.
Are you also saying you have never accused scientists of not believing in god because it relieves them of any responsibility to god?
And let us not forget;
a/ you have no evidence of creation
b/ you have no working theory of creation
c/ you have failed to rebut clear unambiguous and multiple strands of evidence showing that Genesis is not a accurate or literal book.
You sit there, blithely typing away with a Museum in your eyes moaning about crud in the corners of scientist's eyes, criticizing robust theories using discredited websites when you can't prove a damn thing yourself, making theories about post Flood speciation when you've been unable to prove the Flood could even have happened in the date range you believe it did.
It's like the Emperor's New Clothes, even a little boy can see you're naked for all your airs.
Funny, it is.
91
Which massacres did Jehovah sanction?
by Spectrum in
1. watchtower
2. beliefs
the ones i'm familiar with are from the repercussion of the rape and murder of the levites concubine.

judges 19-21 .

about 100,000 died in battle then all the towns of benjamin were put to the sword as were the people that didn't join in against the benjamites.
Abaddon
Hellrider
To claim that "abortion and geoncide are different", that ends the discussion right there

Look in the dictionary. I'm not being rude, I'm pointing out words have definitons for good reasons. Abortion and genocide are different. This is fact. You might wish to characterise abortion as being as morally repugnant as genocide, but as you've not dealt with the facts I have provided showing such a moral comparison is obviously invalid, this is your opinion, not a rational argument. You have every right to your opinion, as so so I.
Rational discussion however, will let us see which opinion should be the best model for society to follow.
it is the same as saying that a featus is not a living person, with the right to live.
Obviously within the bounds I have discussed (a 16 week old fetus is almost literally a no-brainer, for me after that the issue becomes greyer very quickly until at 20 weeks I would only think pressing medical conditions are a valid reason) I don't think a fetus is a 'living person' - as to say a 16 week-old fetus is a 'living person' would be to say a rat is a 'living person' too as the rat is more complex a neurological entity.
- I've given a neurological basis for my stance
No one has dealt with the fact that neurological complexity of first and early second trimester fetuses is NOT equivalent to even a new born human.
- I've given a legal basis for my stance as regards the woman's rights.
No one has responded coherently (saying 'that's extreme' is not a rebuttal, it's an opinion) to the infringement of rights or even enslavement of women that curbing their right to abortions (such as I have described) would entail.
- I've shown how abortion is an ancient practice - one carried out with qualms in societies as moral as ours regarding human life.
- I've shown how some mammals abort if the offspring or mother would be disadvantaged by current conditions.
- I've given a counterargument in advance for those who will claim that even IF a 16-week-old fetus isn't the equivalent of a new born (or even a pet rat), the 'loss of human potential' is what is important.
No one has responded to the clear fact that a lot of human potential locked into those who have actually born could be unlocked before we worry about whatever human potential exists in 2 grammes of neural tissue.
I have also stated at every point that if someone doesn't feel abortion is right, that's fine, they don't have to have one.
You can believe an early term fetus is a human being in the same way a new born is and argue it has a right to live, and act accordingly.
However, I've never said otherwise
All I have said is, on a secular basis, your opinion isn't enforcable as law or demonstrable as 'right'.
I couldn`t disagree more, with just about everything in that statement.
Okay, why? We will not have a very interesting discussion if you just say 'I disagree'.
How would forcing a woman to carry a child to term NOT reduce her to the same status as a slave?
Like I said;
Having children isn't just the woman's responsibility. It is not the sacred duty of woman to bear man's magic seed whenever it happens to blossom in her womb.

A man has to take the responsibility to avoid having sex with someone who would do this if he feels any pregnancy he causes must be bought to term by his broodmare.
Why do you seek to relieve men of all responsibility as regards who they copulate with? And yet allow them to retain every possible right over the product of copulation even if it involves forcing another into servitude for nine months? .
Isn't that, like, massively sexist? - "you woman, bear my child!"
Spectrum
That sounds extreme to me.
Reducing a woman to the staus of slave and men not having to bear responsibility for any 'bad choices' (from that man's point of view) of sexual partner seems extreme to me.
The mother is the custodian of the 46 chromosomes if you like.
In her body. She owns them. Half the chromosomes in her body are from one parent. No parent will try to claim ownership over a child's organs due to this. They are in the childs body, they are owned by them.
If the father wants the baby, the life of the child takes priority over the woman's right to choose death.
Please prove the fetal life (of the type we're talking about, early term abortions) is equivalent to a new born in a rational fashion. You may hold it to be equivalent to a new born to YOU in emotional terms, but that is not what law is based on.
This doesn't reduce the woman to breeding stock or chattel status but recognises the father's right to have his child.
No, it forces a woman to carry a child to term, to have a statistically signficiant chance of death, on a man's whim.
So what if it is in the woman's womb? When women want a child they can't wait to get that sperm inside them and put that womb to good use. When the father wants to keep a child, suddenly, "it's my womb I'll do what I want."
This is more sexist than anything in King Kong was racist. Yeah, them women! Typical!. Just like a woman...
But seriously, I see allowing the man the final say is just enforcing female sexual servitude, and is legally unenforcable for a host of reasons.
MungoBaobab
What many consider barbaric is that if you concede the living entity in question is your son or daughter (which is true), comparing him or her to a vermin worthy of extermination is disconcerting. Wasn't there a Watchtower article comparing worldly people to rats not long ago?
Look, you can have a semi-magical belief a 16 week-old fetus is equivalent to a new born. Go ahead.
As there is no medical basis for this claim in any of the ways we measure an individual's humanity other than on a molecular level, and as at such an early point there is no risk of anything sentient, self-aware or in any way concious being killed, I disagree.
If you feel your argument is made more credible by attacking me personally, go ahead. However, the WT saying grown wordly human beings are rats is like saying Jews are rats or negros are rats; wordly people, Jews and negros all have brains.
A 16 week-old fetus doesn't have anything remotely equivalent to an adult brain. Did you know only about a third of fertilised eggs implant succesfully? That about two thirds of human 'living entities' die without their mother even being aware she has conceived? Why are we so concerned about early term babies when nature is not?
I think the important part of our 'humanity' is in our minds, not our cell neucli (you're free to disagree on this stance as well), I can therefore easily see the difference between my stance and the example you gave in your attack.
91
Which massacres did Jehovah sanction?
by Spectrum in
1. watchtower
2. beliefs
the ones i'm familiar with are from the repercussion of the rape and murder of the levites concubine.

judges 19-21 .

about 100,000 died in battle then all the towns of benjamin were put to the sword as were the people that didn't join in against the benjamites.
Abaddon

Hellrider
No, the people on the rooftops who are yelling "womens right to choose!" are usually not so interested in being there to give advice to the young girl on her back about to be impregnated by some pimplefaced boy, no.

Those same people typically will be the ones lobbying for comprehensive sex education. So I don't agree with the characterisation. They're the one's who have figured as kids will have sex, they may as well do so as safely as possible.
Those opposing comprehensive sex education will stereotypically be the ones lobbying to end the right to abortion.
Funny old world, eh?
But I think we've established the fact that mythical massacres create an impresssion that;
a/ the OT god was a right bastard
b/ but as that part of the Bible is as reliable as Grimm's Fairy Tales, who's to say it's got anything to do about god?
c/ abortion and genocide are different
... and that therefore, Jehovah didn't sanction them, either because Jehovah wouldn't do that and that part of the Bible is largely fictional, or that it's all a fairy story and either there is no god, or there is but Jehovah's just another petty tribal deity.
91
Which massacres did Jehovah sanction?
by Spectrum in
1. watchtower
2. beliefs
the ones i'm familiar with are from the repercussion of the rape and murder of the levites concubine.

judges 19-21 .

about 100,000 died in battle then all the towns of benjamin were put to the sword as were the people that didn't join in against the benjamites.
Abaddon

First I agree that contraception is the first line of defence. Fact; the 'Anglo' Western powers (UK and US) have uptight sex education and high rates of teen pregnancy, and more sexually pragmatic societies have very frank sex education - and teen pregnancy rates a fifth or less of the UK or US. Add in the fact these same counties don't have significantly different ages of first sexual intercourse (the Netherlands is higher than the UK or US), and we can see what needs to be done.
However, given rape, incest, and conraceptive accident (I have one daughter and one aborted pregnancy from condoms tearing, the aborted pregnancy afer a morning-after pill was also 3% bloody useless), abortion is neccesary. Given stupid/lazy/ignorant/drunk people contraception is also neccesary.
Or do you think allowing fools who use abortion as contraception to breed is a good idea?
That group however, is a small one compared to the unlucky. 2-5 percent of women on the pill will conceive each year, given average dilligence.
If half the population of the US are women, and half are fertile, and half of those are on the pill, those 30 odd million women will get pregnant almost a million times (3%). Abortions run at 1.4 million or so each year in the USA. As many of the other 30 odd million fertile women will be using other forms of contraception, with higher failure rates, statistically speaking most abortions are contraceptive accident or medical. I know this is 'back of a serviette statistics', but in that case it'll be really easy to shoot me down in flames, won't it?
I've not met anyone yet who has HAD an abortion who will say people use it as contraception (other than abortion due to lack of sex education). Obviously some do, but they distort the argument for the vast majority.
On a secular basis, if you concede that a pet rat as has more neural tissue than a 16-week fetus (which is true), it is hard to see abortion as barbaric if carried out early (as is the case in a society with decent health systems and liberal attitudes towards sex and sex education). Many animals can spontaneously abort if the environment isn't suitable for giving birth, or they aren't able to support a baby. What's barbaric about giving human females the same choice?
If we are concerned about lost 'human potential', come back to me when we have extracted the maximum human potential from people who have actually been born. Deprived children for a start.
You don't have to like it, but you also don't have to have one.
If you don't like the messy state of abortion law or practice in some countries, ensure those countries educate about contraception and have decent health services. Legislate a medically supportable maximum term for when abortion is allowed for social reasons. That way abortions will be minimised and early.
On a secular basis, opposal to abortion is just an opinion, not a basis for legislation. On a religious basis, even more so.
It doesn't logically work any other way.
As for father's rights.... what rights? Until a child is born the child is the mother's. If a man has sex with someone he gives up rights to those chromosones until they are born. Any other way infringes the woman's rights in an unsupportable fasion, reduces her to breeding stock, slave, chattel.
If he has sex with someone who will go against his heartfelt wishes, he learns to know his next sexual partner better before risking this happening again. Having children isn't just the woman's responsibility. It is not the sacred duty of woman to bear man's magic seed whenever it happens to blossom in her womb. A man has to take the responsibility to avoid having sex with someone who would do this if he feels any pregnancy he causes must be bought to term by his broodmare.
Life in prison for murder? How come countries where whole life terms are exceedingly rare (Holland), and murder is normally a seven year streach, have lower murder rates than countries with the death penalty, let alone true life sentences?
If keeping your everyday muderer locked up for life doesn't make society safer, surely extracting the potential that person has is better than throwing away the key?
Or is it about revenge rather than justice?
4
Ballad of Bilbo Baggins
by daystar in
1. social
2. humour
a classic!!.

http://www.alteringtime.com/features/misc/?p=baggins.

spock, you rock!
Abaddon

Oh I know this, but I ain't clicking on that shit until I'm LOADED...
oh, no, it's going round my head... "Bilbo! Bilbo Baggins DadaddyDaDaDaDaDah"... and those hippy girls with pointy ears in the video of it... seriously €ucked up shit man, like 'Bored of the Rings' come to life... "Tim Tim Benzedrine, some are yellow, some are green..."