PDA

View Full Version : New law on abortions - your thoughts?



Pages : [1] 2

natlee
24-05-2015, 13:56
MPs want to limit state insurance payments for abortions, ban private clinics from performing them and allow women to buy morning-after pills only on prescription after an obligatory health check.

The lawmakers also propose that any woman seeking an abortion should undergo an ultrasound scan of her womb as, “according to statistics, up to 80 percent of them refuse to have the abortion when they see their child on the screen.”

The sponsors of the bill said they want to combat the problem of abortions, which they described as a major threat to national security. The MPs also noted that, in their opinion, the origin of the current crisis was in society’s tolerance of the problem.

The lawmakers also proposed to use about 5 billion rubles ($100 million) saved through the ban on state sponsorship of abortions for aid to pregnant women who find themselves in difficult situations.

http://rt.com/politics/260037-abortions-russia-new-bill/

shurale
24-05-2015, 16:51
MPs want to limit state insurance payments for abortions, ban private clinics from performing them and allow women to buy morning-after pills only on prescription after an obligatory health check.

The lawmakers also propose that any woman seeking an abortion should undergo an ultrasound scan of her womb as, “according to statistics, up to 80 percent of them refuse to have the abortion when they see their child on the screen.”

The sponsors of the bill said they want to combat the problem of abortions, which they described as a major threat to national security. The MPs also noted that, in their opinion, the origin of the current crisis was in society’s tolerance of the problem.

The lawmakers also proposed to use about 5 billion rubles ($100 million) saved through the ban on state sponsorship of abortions for aid to pregnant women who find themselves in difficult situations.

http://rt.com/politics/260037-abortions-russia-new-bill/

Mizulina is Milonov in a skirt.

rusmeister
25-05-2015, 06:39
I'm curious, Natlee - why do you think abortion is NOT the killing of a human child?

Since it is, what am I supposed to think about it?

http://expat.ru/forum/showpost.php?p=1418235&postcount=122

shurale
25-05-2015, 11:29
I'm curious, Natlee - why do you think abortion is NOT the killing of a human child?

Since it is, what am I supposed to think about it?

http://expat.ru/forum/showpost.php?p=1418235&postcount=122

Your ilk rejoyces in killing of born children.
Why do you mind killing of unborn children?

natlee
25-05-2015, 12:04
I'm curious, Natlee - why do you think abortion is NOT the killing of a human child? What ever made you think that I do?

Have you read the article? The proposed changes are about putting restrictions - ok, not quite banning abortion :nut: but making it a little bit harder for women to get one, shouldn't you be in favor of it?

AstarD
25-05-2015, 12:37
Your ilk rejoyces in killing of born children.
Why do you mind killing of unborn children?Now that is totally ad hominem. Where do you get that Rusmeister is in favor of killing anyone?

penka
25-05-2015, 13:03
Never ever has a prohibition of anything exterminated vice, boosted morals or generally improved the life of a regular citizen.

The state should be better concentrating on sexual education, the meaning of contraception and indulged in the financial and social support of the young families. But that is much more laborious than just banning an abortion.

shurale
26-05-2015, 01:05
Now that is totally ad hominem. Where do you get that Rusmeister is in favor of killing anyone?

They almost have orgasm when the priest tells them how God personally killed off Egyptian first-born.
Do you think that Rus is any way different?

rusmeister
26-05-2015, 03:20
What ever made you think that I do?

Have you read the article? The proposed changes are about putting restrictions - ok, not quite banning abortion :nut: but making it a little bit harder for women to get one, shouldn't you be in favor of it?

Maybe you don't. I concede that. :)

But before ANY other consideration may be made on what is right, the first question must be answered first. Is the being inside the mother human or not? And does not abortion kill the living being?

If you answer that, then we can proceed to talk about this.

AstarD
26-05-2015, 19:12
They almost have orgasm when the priest tells them how God personally killed off Egyptian first-born.
Do you think that Rus is any way different?I'm a life-long Christian, and never have seen any other Christian "almost have an orgasm" that Pharaoh's son was killed. Even in the film Out of Egypt, there's just sadness that Pharaoh was so hard hearted.

rusmeister
27-05-2015, 08:05
I'm a life-long Christian, and never have seen any other Christian "almost have an orgasm" that Pharaoh's son was killed. Even in the film Out of Egypt, there's just sadness that Pharaoh was so hard hearted.

Shurale is not interested in rational consideration of what Christians believe. Any stick is good enough to beat us with, no matter whether it is hyperbole or outright lie.

I think I'll be waiting a looooooooooong time for any answer to my questions. We can litter this site with abortion threads, and the last post, which no one wants to answer, is whether babies in the womb are human or not.

That is also why Penka's idea will go nowhere. It matters nothing to talk about sex ed or supporting young families if you are approving the murder of millions of young human beings. That moral evil dwarfs those other considerations. It's like talking about eating more healthily and getting good exercise as ways to get better when you have stage four cancer.

natlee
27-05-2015, 15:57
It's like talking about eating more healthily and getting good exercise as ways to get better when you have stage four cancer. :D :shame: :ignore:

penka
27-05-2015, 19:27
Shurale is not interested in rational consideration of what Christians believe. Any stick is good enough to beat us with, no matter whether it is hyperbole or outright lie.

I think I'll be waiting a looooooooooong time for any answer to my questions. We can litter this site with abortion threads, and the last post, which no one wants to answer, is whether babies in the womb are human or not.

That is also why Penka's idea will go nowhere. It matters nothing to talk about sex ed or supporting young families if you are approving the murder of millions of young human beings. That moral evil dwarfs those other considerations. It's like talking about eating more healthily and getting good exercise as ways to get better when you have stage four cancer.

Seems your attempts to corner other people are going anywhere:D

You do not want a dialogue, rus. The only thing you are longing for is a confirmation of your views. Take those away or prove them wrong, even in a bit, you'll be lost - alone, in a foreign country. It is sad to see, you got nothing but the words of the other people, which constitute the stability of your existence.

rusmeister
28-05-2015, 00:05
Seems your attempts to corner other people are going anywhere:D

You do not want a dialogue, rus. The only thing you are longing for is a confirmation of your views. Take those away or prove them wrong, even in a bit, you'll be lost - alone, in a foreign country. It is sad to see, you got nothing but the words of the other people, which constitute the stability of your existence.

Penka, I don't want to "confirm my views". I want you to stop justifying the murder of innocent human beings, the deliberate killing of them because they are an inconvenience to us.

The whole point is you CAN'T prove wrong that the beings in the womb are human, and that abortion is in fact the killing of them. That's why it's not "my view", but the plain truth. it is evidence enough that you can't that you don't even try - which is at least a certain level of honesty.

natlee
28-05-2015, 00:13
In Rus's defense, most have strong views on strong subjects they not only aren't looking to change, but quite often look to 'force' on others, and for what they see as good reason (being that they're confident in that their view is the only truth!) Now as far as abortion, Rus is on a big mission to save lives. To avoid taking up the space on here with too many words, his belief is that if at least one of us on here comes to think of abortion as murder as a result of all his hard work and goes through, or advises another to go through with an unplanned pregnancy they were otherwise looking to terminate, then that would be a good start! :) Regardless of what you think of him at least Rus is consistent which I find impressive enough ;)

Uncle Wally
28-05-2015, 02:57
In Rus's defense, most have strong views on strong subjects they not only aren't looking to change, but quite often look to 'force' on others, and for what they see as good reason (being that they're confident in that their view is the only truth!) Now as far as abortion, Rus is on a big mission to save lives. To avoid taking up the space on here with too many words, his belief is that if at least one of us on here comes to think of abortion as murder as a result of all his hard work and goes through, or advises another to go through with an unplanned pregnancy they were otherwise looking to terminate, then that would be a good start! :) Regardless of what you think of him at least Rus is consistent which I find impressive enough ;)



I'm consistent! Consistently horny.

penka
28-05-2015, 12:03
In Rus's defense, most have strong views on strong subjects they not only aren't looking to change, but quite often look to 'force' on others, and for what they see as good reason (being that they're confident in that their view is the only truth!) Now as far as abortion, Rus is on a big mission to save lives. To avoid taking up the space on here with too many words, his belief is that if at least one of us on here comes to think of abortion as murder as a result of all his hard work and goes through, or advises another to go through with an unplanned pregnancy they were otherwise looking to terminate, then that would be a good start! :) Regardless of what you think of him at least Rus is consistent which I find impressive enough ;)

Rush is very consistent, no talk about that.

I however, tend to view the topic of the abortion ban from a broader perspective, which incorporates family planning and family support and cannot reduce it to the "abortion is a murder, admit it" sentiment, as I stated above.

I am not saying and never said, abortion is a natural contraception, but I maintain, it is a woman's choice and should maintain so.

Now, if one is to look at the subject from a rational point of view: Do you really, honestly believe, such ban will make people develop a responsible attitude to sex? And there will be no pregnant women, wanting an abortive procedure? What is most likely to happen is that for a fee, there will be lots of helpers, performing abortions in unsuitable, from all points of view, environments. There will be no medical supervision post-abortion, either. Do you really think, that is a better alternative?

natlee
28-05-2015, 13:38
It isn't a complete ban that is being proposed!!!

penka
28-05-2015, 16:54
It isn't a complete ban that is being proposed!!!

Nono, I understand - read it in a Russian paper. Just expressed my general outlook on it.

rusmeister
29-05-2015, 15:24
In Rus's defense, most have strong views on strong subjects they not only aren't looking to change, but quite often look to 'force' on others, and for what they see as good reason (being that they're confident in that their view is the only truth!) Now as far as abortion, Rus is on a big mission to save lives. To avoid taking up the space on here with too many words, his belief is that if at least one of us on here comes to think of abortion as murder as a result of all his hard work and goes through, or advises another to go through with an unplanned pregnancy they were otherwise looking to terminate, then that would be a good start! :) Regardless of what you think of him at least Rus is consistent which I find impressive enough ;)

No thanks button...
Thank you very much!

I would say, were I saying this thirty or forty years ago to your parents, that I am on a mission to save YOUR lives. Perhaps one or more of you is here precisely because your mother turned down the idea of abortion after considering it (something any mother would want to forget, and almost none would admit).
Today that means to prevent the murder, however unconscious the mother is of the fact that that's what it is, of people just like you and me. And any honest examination of what is done during an abortion would have you shuddering, especially when you recognize that the "clump of cells" (aren't we all?) or "fetal tissue" (something all the mothers shout out at a baby shower :rolleyes: ) is actually a human baby. Whether it be poison, or dismemberment, whatever method taken to stop the heart and produce a dead baby hardly matters.

It's so simple I can't make it any simpler: an unborn baby is a human being, too.

AN UNBORN BABY IS HUMAN, TOO!!!
ABORTION IS THE ACT OF KILLING HIM OR HER!!!

Is anyone foolish enough to deny that?

Suuryaa
30-05-2015, 09:53
No thanks button...
Thank you very much!

I would say, were I saying this thirty or forty years ago to your parents, that I am on a mission to save YOUR lives. Perhaps one or more of you is here precisely because your mother turned down the idea of abortion after considering it (something any mother would want to forget, and almost none would admit).
Today that means to prevent the murder, however unconscious the mother is of the fact that that's what it is, of people just like you and me. And any honest examination of what is done during an abortion would have you shuddering, especially when you recognize that the "clump of cells" (aren't we all?) or "fetal tissue" (something all the mothers shout out at a baby shower :rolleyes: ) is actually a human baby. Whether it be poison, or dismemberment, whatever method taken to stop the heart and produce a dead baby hardly matters.

It's so simple I can't make it any simpler: an unborn baby is a human being, too.

AN UNBORN BABY IS HUMAN, TOO!!!
ABORTION IS THE ACT OF KILLING HIM OR HER!!!

Is anyone foolish enough to deny that?

Maybe the problem is that for many the idea of murder in general is not so wild?

penka
30-05-2015, 10:17
I'd like to know, what is rus' opinion on the capital punishment, warfare where the enemy is killed and on self-defence where the attacker/ propetrator is killed.

TolkoRaz
30-05-2015, 10:22
I'd like to know, what is rus' opinion on the capital punishment, warfare where the enemy is killed and on self-defence where the attacker/ propetrator is killed.

See Post 20 - Rus likes using capitals! ;)

rusmeister
30-05-2015, 14:25
There you go - anything to change the subject, rather than admit that basic truth about abortion. Will you still defend it anyway?

penka
30-05-2015, 16:50
There you go - anything to change the subject, rather than admit that basic truth about abortion. Will you still defend it anyway?

You are not answering my question:)

vossy7
30-05-2015, 17:00
See Post 20 - Rus likes using capitals! ;)

:beerbros:

rusmeister
30-05-2015, 20:22
Rush is very consistent, no talk about that.

I however, tend to view the topic of the abortion ban from a broader perspective, which incorporates family planning and family support and cannot reduce it to the "abortion is a murder, admit it" sentiment, as I stated above.

I am not saying and never said, abortion is a natural contraception, but I maintain, it is a woman's choice and should maintain so.

Now, if one is to look at the subject from a rational point of view: Do you really, honestly believe, such ban will make people develop a responsible attitude to sex? And there will be no pregnant women, wanting an abortive procedure? What is most likely to happen is that for a fee, there will be lots of helpers, performing abortions in unsuitable, from all points of view, environments. There will be no medical supervision post-abortion, either. Do you really think, that is a better alternative?
So you ARE saying that killing one 's baby in the womb should be "the mother's choice".

Well, isn't it lucky for you that your mother chose not to kill you? Just think! No Penka to admire and be admired in the world. Just the excruciating pain of being torn apart when you were still incapable of understanding what was being done to you.

Well now you understand. And still defend it. Excluding yourself from your mother's option to kill you, of course.

rusmeister
30-05-2015, 20:23
See Post 20 - Rus likes using capitals! ;)

Tolko, I really only use such things as a last resort, when something is so important that nothing else matters next to it. I don't think I can be accused of abusing them.

rusmeister
30-05-2015, 20:25
I'd like to know, what is rus' opinion on the capital punishment, warfare where the enemy is killed and on self-defence where the attacker/ propetrator is killed.

I'll be happy to discuss those things, but not until you admit that the being being killed in the womb is in fact human.

Would you suggest that it is not??

TolkoRaz
30-05-2015, 21:22
I'll be happy to discuss those things, but not until you admit that the being being killed in the womb is in fact human.


Human or inhumane?

TolkoRaz
30-05-2015, 21:23
I'm consistent! Consistently horny.

Can you not find any female to satisfy your urges & emotions?

Uncle Wally
31-05-2015, 01:12
Can you not find any female to satisfy your urges & emotions?



I just did and I want to do it again!


There are not enough hours in a day for the amount I want to play. Too many girls around the world who make me want to stray.

penka
31-05-2015, 21:35
I'll be happy to discuss those things, but not until you admit that the being being killed in the womb is in fact human.

Would you suggest that it is not??

So, you are pro-life, anti-abortion and pro-capital punishment. Admit it, I won't judge:)

Nobbynumbnuts
31-05-2015, 21:49
So, you are pro-life, anti-abortion and pro-capital punishment. Admit it, I won't judge:)


This should be interesting...

rusmeister
01-06-2015, 02:52
Penka, I really can defend my world view. As I said, as soon as you admit that this topic (abortion, in case anyone forgot) is about killing a human geing inside its mother's womb, I will proceed to the other topics. If you will NOT admit it, and NOT defend why you say it is not, then you are not interested in truth at all, but only in maintaining your precarious and self-contradictory worldview by avoiding dealing with the contradictions.

I really am willing to defend my views; as far as I can tell, you are not.

penka
01-06-2015, 09:09
Penka, I really can defend my world view. As I said, as soon as you admit that this topic (abortion, in case anyone forgot) is about killing a human geing inside its mother's womb, I will proceed to the other topics. If you will NOT admit it, and NOT defend why you say it is not, then you are not interested in truth at all, but only in maintaining your precarious and self-contradictory worldview by avoiding dealing with the contradictions.

I really am willing to defend my views; as far as I can tell, you are not.

You are a very righteous person, rus:)

rusmeister
01-06-2015, 21:19
You are a very righteous person, rus:)

No. I make no such claim, any more than you do for insisting that rape be recognized as a moral evil.
But I can defend my view. You won't or can't defend yours.

francobritannique
01-06-2015, 23:48
... so Rus's arguments are specious, to say the least.

I do find it amusing (in a sad sort of way) that many so-called "pro-life" individuals who style themselves "Christians" are also in favour of the death penalty. Some have even been known to murder medical professionals who provide abortions legitimately. Are you "pro-death", Rus?

Also, to respond to Penka's points, banning or unreasonably limiting women's access to safe abortions for supposed "Christian" reasons only increases the sum of human suffering (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-20321741).

And Rus - are you suggesting (a) that rape is NOT evil or that (b) a woman who becomes pregnant as a result of rape should not be free to terminate the pregnancy?

Uncle Wally
02-06-2015, 00:29
... so Rus's arguments are specious, to say the least.

I do find it amusing (in a sad sort of way) that many so-called "pro-life" individuals who style themselves "Christians" are also in favour of the death penalty. Some have even been known to murder medical professionals who provide abortions legitimately. Are you "pro-death", Rus?

Also, to respond to Penka's points, banning or unreasonably limiting women's access to safe abortions for supposed "Christian" reasons only increases the sum of human suffering (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-20321741).

And Rus - are you suggesting (a) that rape is NOT evil or that (b) a woman who becomes pregnant as a result of rape should not be free to terminate the pregnancy?



The death penalty is just a late term abortion. I thought of this as I stuffed the dead flesh of animals into my mouth with a mixture of murdered plant species concocted into a salad for my own hedonistic gratification, all washed down with vodka and Coca-Cola. I am so glad with our modern technology and my human ears that I do not have to listen as plants and animals are murdered for my oral gratification. Just think how icky you would feel if you had to actually see and hear these lesser forms of life die before making it to your plate! Which also makes me glad that us being such a higher life form we can make highly effective death camps for tasty living things that give us so much joy in chewing them as we thank god for our good blessings that we were able to kill/murder these living things for our own gratification and continued ignorant life!


Sometimes I wonder what makes my life any better than any other living thing? Is it god Rus?

penka
02-06-2015, 15:44
No. I make no such claim, any more than you do for insisting that rape be recognized as a moral evil.
But I can defend my view. You won't or can't defend yours.

Repeating the same selection of words that only reflect your point of view is hardly defending it;)

penka
02-06-2015, 15:47
... so Rus's arguments are specious, to say the least.

I do find it amusing (in a sad sort of way) that many so-called "pro-life" individuals who style themselves "Christians" are also in favour of the death penalty. Some have even been known to murder medical professionals who provide abortions legitimately. Are you "pro-death", Rus?

Also, to respond to Penka's points, banning or unreasonably limiting women's access to safe abortions for supposed "Christian" reasons only increases the sum of human suffering (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-20321741).

And Rus - are you suggesting (a) that rape is NOT evil or that (b) a woman who becomes pregnant as a result of rape should not be free to terminate the pregnancy?

Hey, franco! Long time, no see. Unfortunately, the "thank you button" is no more. Hopefully, for the limited time being.

Certainly, I've read of the executions of ungodly doctors by the pro-life activists. Human hypocrisy, just like idiocy, is limitless.

natlee
02-06-2015, 16:15
Well... I'm pro life when it comes to innocent human beings, and yet am all for killing of non-humans - as long as, of course, their guilt has been proven!

rusmeister
02-06-2015, 19:40
... so Rus's arguments are specious, to say the least.

I do find it amusing (in a sad sort of way) that many so-called "pro-life" individuals who style themselves "Christians" are also in favour of the death penalty. Some have even been known to murder medical professionals who provide abortions legitimately. Are you "pro-death", Rus?

Also, to respond to Penka's points, banning or unreasonably limiting women's access to safe abortions for supposed "Christian" reasons only increases the sum of human suffering (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-20321741).

And Rus - are you suggesting (a) that rape is NOT evil or that (b) a woman who becomes pregnant as a result of rape should not be free to terminate the pregnancy?

Hi, FB,
As I said, I will cheerfully answer questions about the death penalty (which is off-topic) when someone responds to MY question (which is on-topic). The purpose of trying to switch to the death penalty is overtly to avoid answering on the question of whether the being inside the mother is in fact human, and whether abortion in fact kills that being.

And if you read my post more carefully, you will see that I DO condemn rape; I merely do not try to insinuate that Penka sees herself as "righteous" for so thinking, as she does me for thinking abortion to be at least equally evil.

And lastly, on a "sum" of human suffering, there is no such thing.
"There is no such thing as a sum of suffering, for no one suffers it. When we have reached the maximum that a single person can suffer, we have, no doubt, reached something very horrible, but we have reached all the suffering there ever can be in the universe. The addition of a million fellow-sufferers adds no more pain”.
CS Lewis, The Proboem of Pain

rusmeister
02-06-2015, 19:43
Hey, franco! Long time, no see. Unfortunately, the "thank you button" is no more. Hopefully, for the limited time being.

Certainly, I've read of the executions of ungodly doctors by the pro-life activists. Human hypocrisy, just like idiocy, is limitless.

Hey, Penka, I'll talk about "executions of ungodly doctors" as soon as you answer my questions:
Is the being in the womb human or not?
Does the act of abortion kill the being?

If you will not answer those questions, then I have nothing to say to you.

vossy7
02-06-2015, 20:19
Hey, Penka, I'll talk about "executions of ungodly doctors" as soon as you answer my questions:
Is the being in the womb human or not?
Does the act of abortion kill the being?

If you will not answer those questions, then I have nothing to say to you.

So this for your pleasure is OK in your righteous mind ? http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-northern-ireland-20321741 ?

rusmeister
02-06-2015, 20:38
So this for your pleasure is OK in your righteous mind ? http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-northern-ireland-20321741 ?

Answer MY questions and I'll answer yours.

Your trying to worm out of the basic fact that abortion is deliberate child-murder by pointing to something else - ANYTHING else - doesn't impress me.

Uncle Wally
02-06-2015, 22:54
Answer MY questions and I'll answer yours.

Your trying to worm out of the basic fact that abortion is deliberate child-murder by pointing to something else - ANYTHING else - doesn't impress me.



What like the life of the woman?


Up to a certain point Rus it is only a "potential" human. Only at the point where it can live without the host is it a life onto it's own. Can you leave the judgment up to god Rus?

francobritannique
03-06-2015, 00:12
Rus,

You must know (or if you don't, do some reading of scientific literature) that some embryos are viable, some are not. None, by definition, is a human being.

There... I've answered your question.

Now:

1. Do you support the death penalty?
2. Do you support termination for women who become pregnant as a result of rape?
3. Do you support termination in cases such as the Irish one I quoted?

Franco

rusmeister
03-06-2015, 04:59
Rus,

You must know (or if you don't, do some reading of scientific literature) that some embryos are viable, some are not. None, by definition, is a human being.

There... I've answered your question.

Now:

1. Do you support the death penalty?
2. Do you support termination for women who become pregnant as a result of rape?
3. Do you support termination in cases such as the Irish one I quoted?

Franco

FB, no the question is not answered, or if it is, merely displays that YOU don't read scientific literature at all. So no, we are not yet off the topic of what abortion is.

If the embryo is of a given species, then it is a member of that given species. This is why stealing or destroying the eggs of rare birds is a crime, for example.
If an embryo is human, then "by definition", the being (being an embryo) is human. Therefore, they are, by definition, human beings. The biologist is the one who knows this better than you.

"Viable" means "capable of life". Yet what does that mean? Embryos do in fact live. It can only mean "of continuing to live". But a terminal cancer patient is also then living, yet clearly "non-viable", so are an awful lot of people on life support, precisely because they can't continue to live on their own. Therefore, they are all "non-viable". And yet, here you sit, secure in your own "viability", deciding to strip human beings of their status (while smugly maintaining your own) just because you use a Latin word to avoid saying that they are going to die in plain English. But we are ALL going to die. That is the condition of Fallen mankind. That they may be going to die soon (a "fact" that sometimes turns out not to be a fact, which then stymies doctors and scientists) does not change the fact that they are alive NOW, and that you have, in fact, to kill them in order to make them stop living, it requires an active act of will to *ahem!* "terminate" the pregnancy.
http://cinema.theiapolis.com/movie-16N7/the-terminator/gallery/the-terminator-1080229.html

It is a fact that your choice of words ""viable" and "terminate" are mere cover-ups for "life" and "kill". So should "pregnancies" be killed? In order to do that, they must first be alive. You can't kill something that's already dead. (I'm reminded of my little sister saying as a child "I'll kill you till you're dead!")

So you, like most of us, have been bamboozled by language you didn't invent yourself, that we all grew up in and surrounded hy, yet is of quite recent infention and is demonstrably deceptive (as I have just demonstrated). I don't say you are stupid; I do say you have been deceived. As a great many of us have. You are not alone. But if you realize that logically, it must be true that the embryos are human, and are in fact alive, "viable" or not, so that it requires an active procedure to kill them,, then you have the power to change your mind and accept that truth. From there we could go on to discuss the other sad and painful issues that you bring up (and in which I am not disinterested). But first this basic truth must be established, that the being IS human and IS alive.

It takes courage to change your mind and manfully assume the right position when you have been wrong, as we often tend to be on occasion. It takes only stubbornness, a quality we share with donkeys, to keep trying to hold on to the falsehood.

Uncle Wally
03-06-2015, 08:07
FB, no the question is not answered, or if it is, merely displays that YOU don't read scientific literature at all. So no, we are not yet off the topic of what abortion is.

If the embryo is of a given species, then it is a member of that given species. This is why stealing or destroying the eggs of rare birds is a crime, for example.
If an embryo is human, then "by definition", the being (being an embryo) is human. Therefore, they are, by definition, human beings. The biologist is the one who knows this better than you.

"Viable" means "capable of life". Yet what does that mean? Embryos do in fact live. It can only mean "of continuing to live". But a terminal cancer patient is also then living, yet clearly "non-viable", so are an awful lot of people on life support, precisely because they can't continue to live on their own. Therefore, they are all "non-viable". And yet, here you sit, secure in your own "viability", deciding to strip human beings of their status (while smugly maintaining your own) just because you use a Latin word to avoid saying that they are going to die in plain English. But we are ALL going to die. That is the condition of Fallen mankind. That they may be going to die soon (a "fact" that sometimes turns out not to be a fact, which then stymies doctors and scientists) does not change the fact that they are alive NOW, and that you have, in fact, to kill them in order to make them stop living, it requires an active act of will to *ahem!* "terminate" the pregnancy.
http://cinema.theiapolis.com/movie-16N7/the-terminator/gallery/the-terminator-1080229.html

It is a fact that your choice of words ""viable" and "terminate" are mere cover-ups for "life" and "kill". So should "pregnancies" be killed? In order to do that, they must first be alive. You can't kill something that's already dead. (I'm reminded of my little sister saying as a child "I'll kill you till you're dead!")

So you, like most of us, have been bamboozled by language you didn't invent yourself, that we all grew up in and surrounded hy, yet is of quite recent infention and is demonstrably deceptive (as I have just demonstrated). I don't say you are stupid; I do say you have been deceived. As a great many of us have. You are not alone. But if you realize that logically, it must be true that the embryos are human, and are in fact alive, "viable" or not, so that it requires an active procedure to kill them,, then you have the power to change your mind and accept that truth. From there we could go on to discuss the other sad and painful issues that you bring up (and in which I am not disinterested). But first this basic truth must be established, that the being IS human and IS alive.

It takes courage to change your mind and manfully assume the right position when you have been wrong, as we often tend to be on occasion. It takes only stubbornness, a quality we share with donkeys, to keep trying to hold on to the falsehood.



Sorry Rus but that is not the definition of embryo.

francobritannique
03-06-2015, 14:19
Rus,

If your position is, that you won't discuss any substantive part of this topic until everyone agrees with one of your premises (the highly questionable assertion that an embryo is a "being"), then the debate will, indeed, be a short and unsatisfactory one.

I take it (from your lack of condemnation) that you are happy with the death of that unfortunate woman in Galway; that you believe that the victims of rape should be forced to give birth to their rapists' children, and that you support the death penalty. If I am wrong, please enlighten me.

By the way, what's this "Fallen mankind" business?

Franco

vossy7
03-06-2015, 16:49
Answer MY questions and I'll answer yours.

Your trying to worm out of the basic fact that abortion is deliberate child-murder by pointing to something else - ANYTHING else - doesn't impress me.

Rus, I used to answer your questions but the response was always the same unfortunately. I honestly respect that you have your own personal views but I do not agree with them at all. So let's call it quits :AngelPray:

penka
03-06-2015, 17:26
It is not possible to debate with Rus as Rus does not accept a debate per definition. Basically, Rus' ground is a religeous one, that is not even Rus' own opinion but a rather simplified repetition of the point of view of the church' men on the matter. Hence the rejection of any medical terminology and any different opinion. Overton window it is also called.

If a human cell (egg or sperm) is a theoretically hypothetic bearer of a future human (just like an impregnated egg), and an abortive procedure is a murder, then Rus commits a crime of murder each time when he shaves, cuts his hair, fights dandruff, etc as any of those cells (sperm and human eggs are also cells) carry his DNA, and therefore a real possibility of recreating Rus by the very means of cloning is discarded.

Rush might be unaware that over 50% of all impregnated/ fertilised eggs are discarded naturally. In Rus' terminology that means that over 50% of all theoretically hypothetically humans are murdered ( "naturally terminated" in the "unaccepted" terminology). That is a massive world catastrophe. All research funds should be directed to prevent that tragedy instead of making banal research on fighting, say, cancer, as everyone will die in any case (referral to Rus' text above). Yet that does not happen. No voice is raised among the "pro-life" good church-goes. I wonder, how is that possible? "Pro-lifers" silently accept that and deem that ethic, moral and godly??

Even when the heartbeat of the foetos is detectable, the foetus cannot survive outside the woman's body (not even with the most advanced of the modern technology). And the woman got no right to decide for the abortive procedure? God gave a human free will. Church men deny her that. Hardly surprising, since according to the texts, God has created a man in His image and then a female companion to him, made out of a man's rib. A female was no man (here= human) in a full right even before the Fall. Henceforth, she got no right for the abortive procedure ( i.e. having her say) even in the case she got violated sexually and got pregnant as a result.

Shall we go on?....

rusmeister
03-06-2015, 21:16
Rus,

If your position is, that you won't discuss any substantive part of this topic until everyone agrees with one of your premises (the highly questionable assertion that an embryo is a "being"), then the debate will, indeed, be a short and unsatisfactory one.

I take it (from your lack of condemnation) that you are happy with the death of that unfortunate woman in Galway; that you believe that the victims of rape should be forced to give birth to their rapists' children, and that you support the death penalty. If I am wrong, please enlighten me.

By the way, what's this "Fallen mankind" business?

Franco

No, FB. I insist that the topic is abortion and what it IS. That is what you guys are trying to worm your way out of admitting, that it is in fact the killing of a defenseless human being, and I will not discuss anything else until that is admitted. There is nothing else to discuss or debate. As soon as that is admitted, debate is over as surely as it is over for the acceptability of slavery or rape. Then we can close this thread and start a discussion of the other topics you are interested in. If you want to pretend that abortion is NOT the killing of a human being, then either your intelligence or your honesty, even to yourself, is in question and there is nothing to debate with such people. If you can manage to prove that a human embryo is not human, and that abortion does not in fact kill it, then I suppose you could also prove that none of us are actually living. In short, you can't. The game is already over; it is a matter of your admitting it, or of ending all discussion because you can't play chess with someone who won't admit the rules to be valid.

rusmeister
03-06-2015, 21:17
Rus, I used to answer your questions but the response was always the same unfortunately. I honestly respect that you have your own personal views but I do not agree with them at all. So let's call it quits :AngelPray:

No, Vossy, you've lost and can not defend abortion as anything oter than the killing of unborn human beings. That's the only thing I call.

vossy7
03-06-2015, 21:24
It is not possible to debate with Rus as Rus does not accept a debate per definition. Basically, Rus' ground is a religeous one, that is not even Rus' own opinion but a rather simplified repetition of the point of view of the church' men on the matter. Hence the rejection of any medical terminology and any different opinion. Overton window it is also called.

If a human cell (egg or sperm) is a theoretically hypothetic bearer of a future human (just like an impregnated egg), and an abortive procedure is a murder, then Rus commits a crime of murder each time when he shaves, cuts his hair, fights dandruff, etc as any of those cells (sperm and human eggs are also cells) carry his DNA, and therefore a real possibility of recreating Rus by the very means of cloning is discarded.

Rush might be unaware that over 50% of all impregnated/ fertilised eggs are discarded naturally. In Rus' terminology that means that over 50% of all theoretically hypothetically humans are murdered ( "naturally terminated" in the "unaccepted" terminology). That is a massive world catastrophe. All research funds should be directed to prevent that tragedy instead of making banal research on fighting, say, cancer, as everyone will die in any case (referral to Rus' text above). Yet that does not happen. No voice is raised among the "pro-life" good church-goes. I wonder, how is that possible? "Pro-lifers" silently accept that and deem that ethic, moral and godly??

Even when the heartbeat of the foetos is detectable, the foetus cannot survive outside the woman's body (not even with the most advanced of the modern technology). And the woman got no right to decide for the abortive procedure? God gave a human free will. Church men deny her that. Hardly surprising, since according to the texts, God has created a man in His image and then a female companion to him, made out of a man's rib. A female was no man (here= human) in a full right even before the Fall. Henceforth, she got no right for the abortive procedure ( i.e. having her say) even in the case she got violated sexually and got pregnant as a result.

Shall we go on?....

Pen......why do you even try ?

penka
03-06-2015, 22:10
Pen......why do you even try ?

I so wish to believe, there is some glimpse of reason in any God's creation.....

Uncle Wally
03-06-2015, 23:29
I so wish to believe, there is some glimpse of reason in any God's creation.....



Look, he only had six days. Why I don't know but we all have dead lines.

Capman
04-06-2015, 13:26
https://scontent-atl1-1.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xta1/v/t1.0-9/11377385_10153860625320830_6475335503674538554_n.jpg?oh=b23cc7d6a78e59d3d2466b72cabb61c3&oe=55EC711D

This photo was taken at the University of Minnesota by photographer Robert Wolfe in 1972. It was taken during surgery for an ectopic pregnancy. No one can deny the humanity of the unborn even in these early stages.

A doctor who was present for the surgery later shared this testimony:

“Years ago, while giving an anesthetic for a ruptured ectopic pregnancy (at 2 months), I was handed what I believe was the smallest living human ever seen. The embryo sac was intact and transparent. Within the sac was a tiny human male swimming extremely vigorously in the amniotic fluid, while attached to the wall by the umbilical cord. This tiny human was perfectly developed, with long, tapering fingers, feet and toes. It was almost transparent, as regards the skin, and the delicate arteries and veins were prominent to the ends of the fingers. The baby was extremely alive and did not look at all like the photos and drawings of ‘embryos’ which I have seen. When the sac was opened, the tiny human immediately lost its life and took on the appearance of what is accepted as the appearance of an embryo at this stage, blunt extremities, etc.”

francobritannique
04-06-2015, 15:29
No, FB. I insist that the topic is abortion and what it IS. That is what you guys are trying to worm your way out of admitting, that it is in fact the killing of a defenseless human being, and I will not discuss anything else until that is admitted. There is nothing else to discuss or debate. As soon as that is admitted, debate is over as surely as it is over for the acceptability of slavery or rape. Then we can close this thread and start a discussion of the other topics you are interested in. If you want to pretend that abortion is NOT the killing of a human being, then either your intelligence or your honesty, even to yourself, is in question and there is nothing to debate with such people. If you can manage to prove that a human embryo is not human, and that abortion does not in fact kill it, then I suppose you could also prove that none of us are actually living. In short, you can't. The game is already over; it is a matter of your admitting it, or of ending all discussion because you can't play chess with someone who won't admit the rules to be valid.

Rus, clearly you do not want to debate. You said that you would not answer my questions until I had answered yours.

I answered yours, and then you changed your condition to "until you answer me AND agree with my position."

I think you now owe me an answer to my questions:

1. Do you approve of the Irish hospital's refusal of abortion, resulting in the death of their patient?

2. Do you support the death penalty?

3. Do you reject access to abortion for rape victims?

If you again refuse to answer, I can draw only two conclusions:

1. Your answer to all three is "Yes"
2. You are a hypocrite

Franco

PS - I still don't understand the "Fallen mankind" reference. Fallen from where? When? Why? For someone who wants to narrow the debate to his particular obsession, I don't understand what falling has to do with the central question

shurale
04-06-2015, 16:12
Maybe the problem is that for many the idea of murder in general is not so wild?

1. I'm against abortions.
2. Christians protesting murder is like bees protesting honey.

vossy7
04-06-2015, 22:01
1. I'm against abortions.
2. Christians protesting murder is like bees protesting honey.

Yeah and Rus has had a vasectomy :10641:

Uncle Wally
04-06-2015, 23:17
Yeah and Rus has had a vasectomy :10641:



But that's murder! Killing of a viable life.

penka
04-06-2015, 23:41
Masturbation is an unlawful murder of viable semen, gentlemen.:book:

francobritannique
05-06-2015, 00:08
Masturbation is an unlawful murder of viable semen, gentlemen.:book:

Spermicide = genocide.

penka
05-06-2015, 00:13
Spermicide = genocide.

Truly so!:11629:

nicklcool
05-06-2015, 05:11
Molodtsy, Russians!! Thank goodness your elected leaders have some morals and common sense! And it looks like in Russia you can still call a spade a spade without being labled an 'ist of some sort or another. Here in the good old Socialist States of America you're immediately labled a racist sexist hater of the poor if you state the obvious fact that everyone inherently understands: abortion is murder! 😢😢😳😳
I would just love for someone to explain how this is untrue, while even he or she ( we all do) gets that icky my-conscious-is-bothering-me feeling when you hear about:
1. The anecdotal case of some redneck or ghetto hoodrat getting multiple abortions.
2. Someone getting an abortion late term, or even after the first few weeks.

If abortion isn't murder and merely an expression of "choice," then why do we all feel uneasy about these situations, and later term abortions??
I heard a politician mention this once and it sold me on being against abortion: If you can't argue its merits after the first few weeks of pregnancy then there's really no logical grounds to claim that the new life doesn't exist at the moment of conception!

nicklcool
05-06-2015, 05:38
Never ever has a prohibition of anything exterminated vice, boosted morals or generally improved the life of a regular citizen.

The state should be better concentrating on sexual education, the meaning of contraception and indulged in the financial and social support of the young families. But that is much more laborious than just banning an abortion.
This is exactly the wrong approach, it's what the USA has been trying since around the 60s or 70s and yet all the things they (liberal progressives) sought to reduce, have gone up!! ...Hey, maybe we should put them in charge of trying to REDUCE the US economy ;)

nicklcool
05-06-2015, 05:54
I'd like to know, what is rus' opinion on the capital punishment, warfare where the enemy is killed and on self-defence where the attacker/ propetrator is killed.
I'm late to the party, forgive me. It's funny you should bring this up Penka, the exact same debate was going on a few weeks ago when the penalty phase was going on for dzokar tsarnev.
I had never heard this before, but a biblical scholar was writing that 'thou shalt not kill' is an incorrect translation....the commandment is really 'thou shalt not murder.' In this case it makes perfect sense....your examples and the example of capital punishment are killing, not murder!

rusmeister
05-06-2015, 07:20
Rus,

You must know (or if you don't, do some reading of scientific literature) that some embryos are viable, some are not. None, by definition, is a human being.

There... I've answered your question.

Now:

1. Do you support the death penalty?
2. Do you support termination for women who become pregnant as a result of rape?
3. Do you support termination in cases such as the Irish one I quoted?

Franco


Rus, clearly you do not want to debate. You said that you would not answer my questions until I had answered yours.

I answered yours, and then you changed your condition to "until you answer me AND agree with my position."

I think you now owe me an answer to my questions:

1. Do you approve of the Irish hospital's refusal of abortion, resulting in the death of their patient?

2. Do you support the death penalty?

3. Do you reject access to abortion for rape victims?

If you again refuse to answer, I can draw only two conclusions:

1. Your answer to all three is "Yes"
2. You are a hypocrite

Franco


PS - I still don't understand the "Fallen mankind" reference. Fallen from where? When? Why? For someone who wants to narrow the debate to his particular obsession, I don't understand what falling has to do with the central question

FB,
You DIDN'T answer my questions. You assumed one of the answers without answering it, and completely avoided the other one.

Re question number one: ARE THE BEINGS INSIDE THE WOMB HUMAN OR NOT? Your incomplete answer is not a given,and is highly debatable. So no, the question is NOT closed.
I can infer what your answer must be anyway: so you say that babies in the womb are not human. At what objective point, then, do they cease to be "embryos" and become "babies"? When may a mother legitimately think of the being in her womb as a baby and not "an embryo"?

Re question number two: DOES THE OPERATION KNOWN AS ABORTION KILL THE BEING INSIDE THE WOMB OR NOT?, you haven't answered at all.

So no, I am not going to let you evade those questions and change the subject, not even if you call me "a hypocrite".

(Oh, and if you try the analogy to haircutting or fingernail clipping, I will crush it by pointing out that hair and fingernails do not, unlike human embryos, grow into complete separate human beings. So save yourself the effort and don't.)

Since you don't know what the Fall is, a little basic "ликбез":
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_fall_of_man

So educated thought for two millennia has suddenly become "my personal obsession". Hmmm.

rusmeister
05-06-2015, 07:22
https://scontent-atl1-1.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xta1/v/t1.0-9/11377385_10153860625320830_6475335503674538554_n.jpg?oh=b23cc7d6a78e59d3d2466b72cabb61c3&oe=55EC711D

This photo was taken at the University of Minnesota by photographer Robert Wolfe in 1972. It was taken during surgery for an ectopic pregnancy. No one can deny the humanity of the unborn even in these early stages.

A doctor who was present for the surgery later shared this testimony:

“Years ago, while giving an anesthetic for a ruptured ectopic pregnancy (at 2 months), I was handed what I believe was the smallest living human ever seen. The embryo sac was intact and transparent. Within the sac was a tiny human male swimming extremely vigorously in the amniotic fluid, while attached to the wall by the umbilical cord. This tiny human was perfectly developed, with long, tapering fingers, feet and toes. It was almost transparent, as regards the skin, and the delicate arteries and veins were prominent to the ends of the fingers. The baby was extremely alive and did not look at all like the photos and drawings of ‘embryos’ which I have seen. When the sac was opened, the tiny human immediately lost its life and took on the appearance of what is accepted as the appearance of an embryo at this stage, blunt extremities, etc.”

"No one can deny the humanity of the unborn even in these early stages."

Hate to tell you, Cap, but that is exactly what Penka, Vossy, FB, etc are doing, even with the evidence right in front of them.

rusmeister
05-06-2015, 07:27
Never ever has a prohibition of anything exterminated vice, boosted morals or generally improved the life of a regular citizen.


I want to go back to this one for a second.

As stated, this means that all prohibitive law is useless at best, and detrimental at worst. That laws against murder, rape, theftt, etc, do not improve the lives of regular citizens.

So "anything" is obviously much too broad. You have to define your terms, Penka.

francobritannique
05-06-2015, 12:37
FB,
You DIDN'T answer my questions. You assumed one of the answers without answering it, and completely avoided the other one.

Re question number one: ARE THE BEINGS INSIDE THE WOMB HUMAN OR NOT? Your incomplete answer is not a given,and is highly debatable. So no, the question is NOT closed.
I can infer what your answer must be anyway: so you say that babies in the womb are not human. At what objective point, then, do they cease to be "embryos" and become "babies"? When may a mother legitimately think of the being in her womb as a baby and not "an embryo"?

Re question number two: DOES THE OPERATION KNOWN AS ABORTION KILL THE BEING INSIDE THE WOMB OR NOT?, you haven't answered at all.

So no, I am not going to let you evade those questions and change the subject, not even if you call me "a hypocrite".

(Oh, and if you try the analogy to haircutting or fingernail clipping, I will crush it by pointing out that hair and fingernails do not, unlike human embryos, grow into complete separate human beings. So save yourself the effort and don't.)

Since you don't know what the Fall is, a little basic "ликбез":
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_fall_of_man

So educated thought for two millennia has suddenly become "my personal obsession". Hmmm.

So, Rus, you want a metadebate!

I'll take one more stab at answering your questions, noting that you have again completely failed to answer mine. I'm not quite sure why I'm indulging you, but I guess it is in the hope that my magnanimity might just get you to answer my questions.

Q1: when does an embryo become a baby? In English, an embryo is generally considered to be between the first and eighth week after fertilisation. Some definitions only consider an embryo from the third week to the eighth, once organ development has begun. After that it is generally termed a foetus. A foetus becomes a baby when it is born!

Q2: Does abortion kill a baby? No. Am embryo is not "alive" - it is totally incapable of sustained existence outside the womb. So you cannot kill something that is not alive. Do you consider a fertilised egg, before the first cell division, to be "alive"?

My questions concern real, living people, not sophistry. They should, therefore, be easy to answer.

Remember: I am not asking you to give me some objective truth... I am simply asking for your point of view on some very pragmatic questions.

Oh! You're talking Christian theology! I didn't realise. Not relevant here (I thought you were trying to focus on the argument at hand?). Equating "theology" with "educated thought" is an interesting one... but, as I said, irrelevant here.

Hopefully (but frustratedly) yours,

Franco

natlee
05-06-2015, 13:47
Wow...

Back to bullshit on masturbation being murder - thought we only had one Russian Lad! :nut: Now on a more serious note, justifying abortion by saying that many pregnancies result in miscarriage anyway is like saying that since many car rides result in fatal accidents why not just kill a driver/passenger before they even get into the car? :nut: Admit it people (to yourselves, no need to do on here), only reason most of you still argue against abortion being murder is because you've either had one or convinced a gf/wife/daughter to have one and are now bending over backwards to justify it - I know the type all too well! We've all made mistakes, trouble is some not only fail to admit theirs but go as far as to proceed to advise others to make the same (in this case, fatal) ones. Now take a moment to digest just this one thing: if a pregnant woman does nothing, then she will most likely end up with a baby human! :) It does take a 'procedure' to ensure that that does not happen - sorry to say, but the procedure is indeed murder! It just happens to be legal murder.

No, unlike Rus I am not against a woman who has been raped terminating the pregnancy - not because I do not think of abortion as murder in that case, but becasue I genuinely feel that by not terminating such pregnancy *some* women are risking losing their own life - in the form of sanity, at the very least.

francobritannique
05-06-2015, 14:43
Wow...

Back to bullshit on masturbation being murder - thought we only had one Russian Lad! :nut: Now on a more serious note, justifying abortion by saying that many pregnancies result in miscarriage anyway is like saying that since many car rides result in fatal accidents why not just kill a driver/passenger before they even get into the car? :nut: Admit it people (to yourselves, no need to do on here), only reason most of you still argue against abortion being murder is because you've either had one or convinced a gf/wife/daughter to have one and are now bending over backwards to justify it - I know the type all too well! We've all made mistakes, trouble is some not only fail to admit theirs but go as far as to proceed to advise others to make the same (in this case, fatal) ones. Now take a moment to digest just this one thing: if a pregnant woman does nothing, then she will most likely end up with a baby human! :) It does take a 'procedure' to ensure that that does not happen - sorry to say, but the procedure is indeed murder! It just happens to be legal murder.

No, unlike Rus I am not against a woman who has been raped terminating the pregnancy - not because I do not think of abortion as murder in that case, but becasue I genuinely feel that by not terminating such pregnancy *some* women are risking losing their own life - in the form of sanity, at the very least.

Natlee,

I personally have never been involved with convincing anyone to have an abortion... and I view abortion as something that should not be undertaken lightly. It should most certainly not be considered a means of contraception!

However, I do strongly believe that the law should allow women to make their own minds up on this very difficult moral issue.

Apart from anything else, as we have seen (e.g. the case in Ireland that I cited), black-and-white laws inspired by theology can lead to very undesirable outcomes.

It is not up to a man to make that decision for a woman! Or another woman, for that matter.

Franco

natlee
05-06-2015, 15:10
Natlee,

I personally have never been involved with convincing anyone to have an abortion... and I view abortion as something that should not be undertaken lightly. It should most certainly not be considered a means of contraception!

However, I do strongly believe that the law should allow women to make their own minds up on this very difficult moral issue. I repeat, the law still does and will - they have merely proposed restrictions.

penka
05-06-2015, 15:13
I repeat, the law still does and will - they have merely proposed restrictions.

Indeed. But those restrictions will effectively annihilate the possibility to have an abortive procedure in a clinic and by a specialist. So, back to my initial post.

francobritannique
05-06-2015, 15:46
MPs want to limit state insurance payments for abortions, ban private clinics from performing them and allow women to buy morning-after pills only on prescription after an obligatory health check.

The lawmakers also propose that any woman seeking an abortion should undergo an ultrasound scan of her womb as, “according to statistics, up to 80 percent of them refuse to have the abortion when they see their child on the screen.”

The sponsors of the bill said they want to combat the problem of abortions, which they described as a major threat to national security. The MPs also noted that, in their opinion, the origin of the current crisis was in society’s tolerance of the problem.

The lawmakers also proposed to use about 5 billion rubles ($100 million) saved through the ban on state sponsorship of abortions for aid to pregnant women who find themselves in difficult situations.

http://rt.com/politics/260037-abortions-russia-new-bill/

It would appear that limiting state insurance payments for abortions is exactly about removing the woman's right to make up her own mind!

rusmeister
05-06-2015, 16:50
Natlee,

I personally have never been involved with convincing anyone to have an abortion... and I view abortion as something that should not be undertaken lightly. It should most certainly not be considered a means of contraception!

However, I do strongly believe that the law should allow women to make their own minds up on this very difficult moral issue.

Apart from anything else, as we have seen (e.g. the case in Ireland that I cited), black-and-white laws inspired by theology can lead to very undesirable outcomes.

It is not up to a man to make that decision for a woman! Or another woman, for that matter.

Franco

By your own theory it's not a difficult moral issue at all. According to you, babies in the womb are only embryos, and embryos are not human. You bask in a mystical doctrine that in exiting the womb, the being magically and instantaneously becomes human. One minute before birth, not human. One minute after birth, hey presto! A human being, endowed with rights!
"Sorry, kid, you're on the wrong side of the vagina! Tough luck!" You're just a clump of cells."
"Are you all coming to my embryo party?"
"An ultrasound! Let's see what our embryo looks like!"
"Wow! Look at her embryo bump!"
"The doctor said my clump of cells needs the best nourishment it can get."
Etc.

So where's the moral difficulty in this view of yours?

Black and white laws inspired by theology are what created the civil society that you take for granted. "All men are created equal." If that wasn't inspired by theology, then nothing is.

natlee
05-06-2015, 16:57
By your own theory it's not a difficult moral issue at all. According to you, vabies in the womb are only embryos, and embryos are not human. You bask in a mystical doctrine that in exiting the womb, the being magically and instantaneously becomes human. One minute before birth, not human. One minute after birth, hey presto! A human being, endowed with rights!
"Sorry, kid, you're on the wrong side of the vagina! Tough luck!" You're just a clump of cells."
"Are you all coming to my embryo party?"
"An ultrasound! Let's see what our embryo looks like!"
"Wow! Look at her embryo bump!"
"The doctor said my clump of cells needs the best nourishment it can get."
Etc.

So where's the moral difficulty in this view of yours? I tend to agree... :(

francobritannique
05-06-2015, 16:57
Rus,

Since I took the trouble to answer your questions, could you please answer mine before meandering down yet another theological rat-hole?

Thank you!

Franco

rusmeister
05-06-2015, 17:02
Wow...

Back to bullshit on masturbation being murder - thought we only had one Russian Lad! :nut: Now on a more serious note, justifying abortion by saying that many pregnancies result in miscarriage anyway is like saying that since many car rides result in fatal accidents why not just kill a driver/passenger before they even get into the car? :nut: Admit it people (to yourselves, no need to do on here), only reason most of you still argue against abortion being murder is because you've either had one or convinced a gf/wife/daughter to have one and are now bending over backwards to justify it - I know the type all too well! We've all made mistakes, trouble is some not only fail to admit theirs but go as far as to proceed to advise others to make the same (in this case, fatal) ones. Now take a moment to digest just this one thing: if a pregnant woman does nothing, then she will most likely end up with a baby human! :) It does take a 'procedure' to ensure that that does not happen - sorry to say, but the procedure is indeed murder! It just happens to be legal murder.

No, unlike Rus I am not against a woman who has been raped terminating the pregnancy - not because I do not think of abortion as murder in that case, but becasue I genuinely feel that by not terminating such pregnancy *some* women are risking losing their own life - in the form of sanity, at the very least.

I agree with you almost completely, Natlee. And I sympathize with the horrible situation of an unwanted pregnancy due to rape. And for this reason I do think capital punishment a not unreasonable reaction of society. But I must ask you what you could possibly say to Rebecca Kiessling. She is a real human being whose death you would approve of because of of concern for the mother. How does making her complicit in murder improve an already bad situation?

http://www.rebeccakiessling.com/

Nobody is saying a word about her. You are all as silent as the grave. She shuts up all discussion of any exceptions to abortion by her mere existence.

And again, the appropriate response of a woman, or a couple, who have committed abortion, is repentance. Yes, accepting the Faith is THE way out of this massive and obvious self-deception, of both living with and in truth, and finding hope and peace, rather than running and hiding, lying and denying. Many of us have been victims of the lies of modern society, and we do not think blame and punishment to be any good here; only confession, weeping, and repenting, changing one's heart, mind and soul, determining never to do it again.

I know a woman who was responsible for a great many abortions. She has found that way out. If you think men have nothing to say (though we are aborted just as the females are) then listen to her:
http://www.abbyjohnson.org/

rusmeister
05-06-2015, 17:13
Rus,

Since I took the trouble to answer your questions, could you please answer mine before meandering down yet another theological rat-hole?

Thank you!

Franco

FB, I hold a world view that sees man as an eternal being. Murder is horrible because it is destruction of the image of God.
It took quite a lot to convince me that I could admit that a society has a right to execute criminals in certain cases; suffice to say, you would have to know a LOT more than you do now, since you know nothing of theology and think it purely imaginary, about as uninformed a view as one could have. I will offer the podcast series that convinced me that (although we can never justify the errors of a society) I have to concede the right of a society to put people to death for heinous crimes:
http://www.ancientfaith.com/podcasts/stevethebuilder/capital_punishment_part_1
That's the first one, if you are honestly interested, I can refer you to the rest, though you should be able to find them easily on your own.

But I am extremely skeptical that I can say anything that you could hear. You have shown that you deny to a baby of eight months in the womb humanity and personhood; there were people in America who thought blacks were not human and it took a civil war and a century of struggle aferward to establish the social consensus there that they are.

natlee
05-06-2015, 17:13
I agree with you almost completely, Natlee. And I sympathize with the horrible situation of an unwanted pregnancy due to rape. And for this reason I do think capital punishment a not unreasonable reaction of society. But I must ask you what you could possibly say to Rebecca Kiessling. She is a real human being whose death you would approve of because of of concern for the mother. How does making her complicit in murder improve an already bad situation?

http://www.rebeccakiessling.com/

Nobody is saying a word about her. You are all as silent as the grave. She shuts up all discussion of any exceptions to abortion by her mere existence.

And again, the appropriate response of a woman, or a couple, who have committed abortion, is repentance. Yes, accepting the Faith is THE way out of this massive and obvious self-deception, of both living with and in truth, and finding hope and peace, rather than running and hiding, lying and denying. Many of us have been victims of the lies of modern society, and we do not think blame and punishment to be any good here; only confession, weeping, and repenting, changing one's heart, mind and soul, determining never to do it again.

I know a woman who was responsible for a great many abortions. She has found that way out. If you think men have nothing to say (though we are aborted just as the females are) then listen to her:
http://www.abbyjohnson.org/ I have read up on and watched videos of Rebecca Kiessling and do understand where you're coming from. All I am saying is it would take something incredible for any woman to go through with that type of pregnancy after and as a result of something so horrible with their sanity intact. Strictly speaking, the best solution would be to have the baby and give it up for adoption making sure he/she will never know the story of their conception (you will disagree, but that is my strong opinion) - but, that is far easier said than done (for a ton of obvious reasons) and the above still holds true... Now that is an INCREDIBLY difficult moral issue I sincerely hope none of us ever have to deal with!

penka
05-06-2015, 17:18
I suppose, everyone agrees, an abortion is not a very good contraception. From there one magnificent hodgepodge is compiled.

- Rus' starting point is that sex outside a wedlock, masturbation (male, especially, as the semen is spilled in vain) and sex generally with a contraception are all sinful activities. Because mother church says so. Period.
Hence, rus ignores with necessity the point on sexual education. Obviously, ignorant people are easier to control and indoctrinate.
Rus does not oppose the carrying on the pregnancy and giving birth to a child of inscest or rape. And by the way, the earlier discussion why father with no contact with the child, should pay for its upbringing went along those lines.
Sexist, to say the least. And a form of controlling a female and her reproduction.

As apalling as the daytime advertising for tampons and female sanitary pads. The euphemism of "those days" and modest blue liquid is used. How very puritan and clean! Menstruation is it called, when the un-impregnated cell is discharged together with the endometrium and is, in fact, bleeding.
But then, of course, money is made on the sanitary products and the rest is highly offensive.
Just like the human bodily needs, including sex.

- Rus implies, already a human zygote, through blastocyst, embryo and foetus is a human being. All the mentioned stages are not viable, apart from the late stages of the foetus that in some cases can be sustained through the art of medicine. Rus does not oppose medicine, no? Non-viability to the extend they cannot exist outside of the pregnant woman's body, unlike a severely incapacitated human, as helpfully outlined in Cap's post.

- If it is a human being, that should be stipulated legally.

Yet none of the pro-lifers bother to raise the relevant question of giving a human zygote a social security number or a citizenship. None raises the question of the foetus' social identity, even. How very awkward, no?

We can go on ad nauseum:)

PS Nat, you really believe, money saved from the abortions (sorry, unlawful killings of the human foetuses will be in full redirected to support the potential mothers-to-be)?:)

penka
05-06-2015, 17:34
I agree with you almost completely, Natlee. And I sympathize with the horrible situation of an unwanted pregnancy due to rape. And for this reason I do think capital punishment a not unreasonable reaction of society. But I must ask you what you could possibly say to Rebecca Kiessling. She is a real human being whose death you would approve of because of of concern for the mother. How does making her complicit in murder improve an already bad situation?

http://www.rebeccakiessling.com/

Nobody is saying a word about her. You are all as silent as the grave. She shuts up all discussion of any exceptions to abortion by her mere existence.

And again, the appropriate response of a woman, or a couple, who have committed abortion, is repentance. Yes, accepting the Faith is THE way out of this massive and obvious self-deception, of both living with and in truth, and finding hope and peace, rather than running and hiding, lying and denying. Many of us have been victims of the lies of modern society, and we do not think blame and punishment to be any good here; only confession, weeping, and repenting, changing one's heart, mind and soul, determining never to do it again.

I know a woman who was responsible for a great many abortions. She has found that way out. If you think men have nothing to say (though we are aborted just as the females are) then listen to her:
http://www.abbyjohnson.org/

Thank you:) Quod erat demonstrandum.

natlee
05-06-2015, 17:35
- Rus' starting point is that sex outside a wedlock, masturbation (male, especially, as the semen is spilled in vain) and sex generally with a contraception are all sinful activities. Fine, I disagree with that, but you aren't really saying that the above and abortion are equal 'sins'? ;)


Hence, rus ignores with necessity the point on sexual education. He does?



- If it is a human being, that should be stipulated legally.

Yet none of the pro-lifers bother to raise the relevant question of giving a human zygote a social security number or a citizenship. Not commenting on nonsense - sorry!


PS Nat, you really believe, money saved from the abortions (sorry, unlawful killings of the human foetuses will be in full redirected to support the potential mothers-to-be)?:) I believe that perhaps making abortion a slightly more difficult option to take will make women finally start thinking, and as far as your question, let's just say that I would really like to believe that!

penka
05-06-2015, 17:38
Fine, I disagree with that, but you aren't really saying that the above and abortion are equal 'sins'? ;)

He does?


Not commenting on nonsense - sorry!

I believe that perhaps making abortion a slightly more difficult option to take will make women finally start thinking, and as far as your question, let's just say that I would really like to believe that!

You are fully entitled to your beliefs, Nat:)

francobritannique
05-06-2015, 17:39
FB, I hold a world view that sees man as an eternal being. Murder is horrible because it is destruction of the image of God.
It took quite a lot to convince me that I could admit that a society has a right to execute criminals in certain cases; suffice to say, you would have to know a LOT more than you do now, since you know nothing of theology and think it purely imaginary, about as uninformed a view as one could have. I will offer the podcast series that convinced me that (although we can never justify the errors of a society) I have to concede the right of a society to put people to death for heinous crimes:
http://www.ancientfaith.com/podcasts/stevethebuilder/capital_punishment_part_1
That's the first one, if you are honestly interested, I can refer you to the rest, though you should be able to find them easily on your own.

But I am extremely skeptical that I can say anything that you could hear. You have shown that you deny to a baby of eight months in the womb humanity and personhood; there were people in America who thought blacks were not human and it took a civil war and a century of struggle aferward to establish the social consensus there that they are.

Rus,

Thank you for your answer on the death penalty. I'll come back to that one in due course.

You haven't yet given me your view on the Irish hospital's refusal to grant an abortion to the woman who died as a result. I'd be interested to read that.

As far as using "the faith" as a guide for everything one does... Religion is of course a construct of mankind, and I do not believe that it is necessarily sensible to base one's world view on a book that reflected man's understanding of the universe two thousand years ago. We have learned a great deal since the bible was dreamed up!

Out of interest, do you believe the Bible to be literally true?

Franco

natlee
05-06-2015, 17:48
Thank you:) Quod erat demonstrandum. Because killing an innocent human to be is, of course, exactly the same as killing a rapist! ;)

penka
05-06-2015, 17:52
Because killing an innocent human to be is, of course, exactly the same as killing a rapist! ;)

Please, do define an innocent human, Nat!:) That would be fun to read.

You consume innocent mammals, btw?;)

natlee
05-06-2015, 17:56
You are fully entitled to your beliefs, Nat:) Thank you!

What I find kinda funny is the fact that while you (all) mock Rus for only seeing things his way, standing his ground, 'forcing' his opinion on the rest of us etc. you're doing a very similar thing, except while he's basically saying please realize where you're wrong, your attitude is more along the lines of, you're all idiots for I and only I know the absolute truth ;)

francobritannique
05-06-2015, 17:57
Because killing an innocent human to be is, of course, exactly the same as killing a rapist! ;)

One of the biggest problems (if not the biggest problem) with the death penalty is that it is irreversible - and there are countless cases of innocent, live, human beings, with families and dependents, having been executed in error.

Rus - I am curious how you can possibly defend the death penalty while simultaneously arguing that a fertilised egg is somehow sacred?

natlee
05-06-2015, 17:58
Please, do define an innocent human, Nat!:) That would be fun to read. See, there goes the attitude again!

How about you change your reasoning to what it really is - my body, my baby -> I do as I see fit! That would only be fair ;)

To answer your odd question - a baby (yes, a baby to be as well) is ALWAYS innocent.

natlee
05-06-2015, 17:58
One of the biggest problems (if not the biggest problem) with the death penalty is that it is irreversible - and there are countless cases of innocent, live, human beings, with families and dependents, having been executed in error. Now THAT I agree with fully!

penka
05-06-2015, 18:02
See, there goes the attitude again!

How about you change your reasoning to what it really is - my body, my baby -> I do as I see fit! That would only be fair ;)

To answer your odd question - a baby (yes, a baby to be as well) is ALWAYS innocent.

It's reason and knowledge, Nat:)

Am I arguing against "to see as fit"?? I fail to understand!

Always? You have omitted the Fall, dear:)

natlee
05-06-2015, 18:09
It's reason and knowledge, Nat:) LOL! Exactly what I've been talking about.

penka
05-06-2015, 18:28
LOL! Exactly what I've been talking about.

You must have worked real hard on hiding it, then!:D

natlee
05-06-2015, 18:35
Am I arguing against "to see as fit"?? I fail to understand! My bad - wrong choice of words, multitasking here! Should've said how about you call it what it really is :)

penka
05-06-2015, 18:43
One of the biggest problems (if not the biggest problem) with the death penalty is that it is irreversible - and there are countless cases of innocent, live, human beings, with families and dependents, having been executed in error.

Rus - I am curious how you can possibly defend the death penalty while simultaneously arguing that a fertilised egg is somehow sacred?

Off the topic and out of sheer curiosity: Are you British by chance?
Some words you are using, no American, French notwithstanding would be able to use:)

vossy7
05-06-2015, 18:46
Before Wally jumps in.....testicles first ....I love it when two Russian ladies have a real ding-dong :mml:

natlee
05-06-2015, 18:46
Speaking of knowledge (and facts!):

I know many women who at least at one point in their lives were faced with an unwanted pregnancy. I don't know one woman who has regretted keeping her baby. I do know plenty who regret their abortion(s). Most only realize the extent of what they've done once they have children. Some learn from their... mistakes, and make sure they don't make another, while others spend their lives looking for 'reasons' to justify what they've done and many go as far as to advise their girlfriends, daughters, granddaughters etc. to do the same for one reason only - to make them feel better for what they have done! :eek: That is the worst kind and sadly, I've met dozens.

francobritannique
05-06-2015, 18:49
Off the topic and out of sheer curiosity: Are you British by chance?
Some words you are using, no American, French notwithstanding would be able to use:)

How did you guess? :evilgrin:

London born and bred with a sprinkling of Oxbridge and significant sojourns in parts more southern and easterly...

I'm not sure what you are implying about our transatlantic and transmanche cousins but, if it's what I think it is, you could just possibly be right!

Enigmatically yours,

Franco

penka
05-06-2015, 18:49
Before Wally jumps in.....testicles first ....I love it when two Russian ladies have a real ding-dong :mml:

What ding-dong?? Nat and myself are conversing.

natlee
05-06-2015, 18:51
How did you guess? :evilgrin: Possibly by looking under "location"? :p


What ding-dong?? Nat and myself are conversing. :agree:

penka
05-06-2015, 18:54
How did you guess? :evilgrin:

London born and bred with a sprinkling of Oxbridge and significant sojourns in parts more southern and easterly...

I'm not sure what you are implying about our transatlantic and transmanche cousins but, if it's what I think it is, you could just possibly be right!

Enigmatically yours,

Franco

Aha! Evil species, then. Cambridge is the real macCoy!:10189:
I lived in London for several years, Fulham. And am not that fond of the nasal accent:)

francobritannique
05-06-2015, 19:02
Possibly by looking under "location"? :p

:agree:

Sh!t she's good, that Penka :-)

penka
05-06-2015, 19:04
Possibly by looking under "location"? :p

:agree:

Franco talks far too smart despite his devious nic:D

francobritannique
05-06-2015, 19:04
Aha! Evil species, then. Cambridge is the real macCoy!:10189:
I lived in London for several years, Fulham. And am not that fond of the nasal accent:)

I did say OxBRIDGE, Penka, thereby maintaining some suspense, or so I thought... :-)

But yes, your intuition is right, if your judgement somewhat skewed :-) How can you possibly call the other place "the real macCoy", when it is but a pale imitation!!!

Fulham? Really?! I was born and grew up there...

Small world...

vossy7
05-06-2015, 19:05
What ding-dong?? Nat and myself are conversing.

Now you really got me going :evilgrin:

penka
05-06-2015, 19:08
I did say OxBRIDGE, Penka, thereby maintaining some suspense, or so I thought... :-)

But yes, your intuition is right, if your judgement somewhat skewed :-) How can you possibly call the other place "the real macCoy", when it is but a pale imitation!!!

Fulham? Really?! I was born and grew up there...

Small world...

My late father in law studied at Cambridge, so I know all the stories:)

Yep. Not far from Parson's Green. Second street on your left hand side, once at the tube lane:)

francobritannique
05-06-2015, 19:10
1
My late father in law studied at Cambridge, so I know all the stories:)

Yep. Not far from Parson's Green. Second street on your left hand side, once at the tube lane:)

Oh...!

Then we have lived, literally, in parallel universes :-) I lived two streets along from there... the one down from the pub on the corner...

VERY small world!

penka
05-06-2015, 19:14
1

Oh...!

Then we have lived, literally, in parallel universes :-) I lived two streets along from there... the one down from the pub on the corner...

VERY small world!

Oh!
You know Elizabeth King and the Kid Kebab?

francobritannique
05-06-2015, 19:15
Oh!
You know Elizabeth King and the Kid Kebab?

Yes... although Elizabeth King is no more, but the Kebab Kid is a favourite of Jamie Oliver's!

penka
05-06-2015, 19:16
Yes... although Elizabeth King is no more, but the Kebab Kid is a favourite of Jamie Oliver's!

Pity. It was a very good place.

:)) Love the guy!

rusmeister
05-06-2015, 19:17
I suppose, everyone agrees, an abortion is not a very good contraception. From there one magnificent hodgepodge is compiled.

- Rus' starting point is that sex outside a wedlock, masturbation (male, especially, as the semen is spilled in vain) and sex generally with a contraception are all sinful activities. Because mother church says so. Period.
Hence, rus ignores with necessity the point on sexual education. Obviously, ignorant people are easier to control and indoctrinate.
Rus does not oppose the carrying on the pregnancy and giving birth to a child of inscest or rape. And by the way, the earlier discussion why father with no contact with the child, should pay for its upbringing went along those lines.
Sexist, to say the least. And a form of controlling a female and her reproduction.

As apalling as the daytime advertising for tampons and female sanitary pads. The euphemism of "those days" and modest blue liquid is used. How very puritan and clean! Menstruation is it called, when the un-impregnated cell is discharged together with the endometrium and is, in fact, bleeding.
But then, of course, money is made on the sanitary products and the rest is highly offensive.
Just like the human bodily needs, including sex.

- Rus implies, already a human zygote, through blastocyst, embryo and foetus is a human being. All the mentioned stages are not viable, apart from the late stages of the foetus that in some cases can be sustained through the art of medicine. Rus does not oppose medicine, no? Non-viability to the extend they cannot exist outside of the pregnant woman's body, unlike a severely incapacitated human, as helpfully outlined in Cap's post.

- If it is a human being, that should be stipulated legally.

Yet none of the pro-lifers bother to raise the relevant question of giving a human zygote a social security number or a citizenship. None raises the question of the foetus' social identity, even. How very awkward, no?

We can go on ad nauseum:)

PS Nat, you really believe, money saved from the abortions (sorry, unlawful killings of the human foetuses will be in full redirected to support the potential mothers-to-be)?:)


Because mother church says so.
Wrong, Penka.
Because a view that I find to be true that the Church CONFIRMS, but which I can defend entirely without religious reference. This is your huge and constant mistake about me. To assume that I have no rational underpinnings for what I think, and never to ask what those underpinnings are.
Apologetics assumes from the get-go that those addressed do not believe, and so focuses on understandings we hold in common, without assuming any religious belief.
My view means that, as a child, you don't need to worry about your father running off with the secretary, or your mother running off with the plumber. it is the ensurance of a stable family unit, necessary for the stable and healthy society, that values the family above both the individual (capitalism) and the community (socialism). It means that two people who vegan a relationship in lve make a sacred vow, that they must determine to keep for life, and learn to love each other when it becomes difficult to do so, for the sake of the children, the family, our friends and neighbors, and all who depend on us. It recognizes sex for what it is: a nuclear bomb, that creates the nuclear family. Not a casual act, like brushing one's teeth or riding a merry-go-round, but an act open to the possibility of procreation, the renewal of the human race, that prevents us from being mere kidults and forces us to grow up and surrendur our place at the center of our universes to our spouses and children.

You cannot have "sex education" until you first understand the true nature of sex. If you have the wrong understanding (and you do), then your education is not education any more than a flat-earth view of the world is education in geography, and that happens to be the case with your "sex education". It's no good knowing how to make venereal disease less likely if you have completely misunderstood the nature and purposes of sex. And one of those misunderstandings is the modern world's deliberate separation of the sexual act from its procreative function, resulting in the epidemic nature of divorce, betrayal, moving from"partner" to "partner", single parents, and things that had been abnormal exceptions, that happened, yes, but were not the rule of society as they are today.

All teaching is indoctrination. If you conduct your "sex education", you are indoctrinating people (including, theoretically, my children) with a particular world view: yours, and your (mis)understanding of what the nature and purpose of sex are. Easier to control, indeed! What you don't know is that there ARE entities that benefit from sex miseducation that results in widespread fornication and the break-up of the family, the end of it as a unit held sacred and sovereign in society, and we can call them big government and big business. And there is one institution that commands a loyalty higher and deeper than either of them that stands in the way of their tyranny: the family, bound by ties of blood and sacred vows. When the nuclear family is split up, they can divide and conquer, as they in fact have.

There is much more. And none of it need reference religion. But you aren't interested in finding out what those rational underpinnings are. Your picture only holds any water at all as long as you can imagine my view to be both mindless and dependent on religion. Well it's not. It's based much more on making sure other little Penkas have both their mother and their father throughout their formative years and beyond, to become grandparents to their children, to admire their lifelong faithfulness, to have a healthy society where almost no one is a single mother struggling alone, and where practically all kids can have their fathers read to them at night, something sexual libertinism destroys, placing individual and fleeting desires (which the failure to fulfill does not actually kill or cause death) anove those greater goods. I think sex a very GOOD thing, in its proper place, Penka. It's only your wishful thinking that I think it a bad thing.

Where's the religious hype there, Penka?

francobritannique
05-06-2015, 20:04
Pity. It was a very good place.

:)) Love the guy!

It was indeed!

Yes - he has excellent taste in kebabs :-)

Let me guess... L***** Road? (sounds about right from your description)

penka
05-06-2015, 20:26
It was indeed!

Yes - he has excellent taste in kebabs :-)

Let me guess... L***** Road? (sounds about right from your description)

:D

Yes, L...er Rd. Yours must have been P........h Rd, no?:) That's the one running from the pub, in any case.

francobritannique
05-06-2015, 20:35
:D

Yes, L...er Rd. Yours must have been P........h Rd, no?:) That's the one running from the pub, in any case.

YES!!!

You ARE good, Penka!

Flabbergasted Franco

penka
05-06-2015, 20:52
YES!!!

You ARE good, Penka!

Flabbergasted Franco

:)

francobritannique
05-06-2015, 22:55
:)

Nice to see you smile!

Franco

francobritannique
06-06-2015, 22:16
... has admitted defeat...

penka
06-06-2015, 22:17
Nice to see you smile!

Franco

Mm:)

rusmeister
07-06-2015, 05:10
Here is the last post in which FB addressed abortion:

Natlee,

I personally have never been involved with convincing anyone to have an abortion... and I view abortion as something that should not be undertaken lightly. It should most certainly not be considered a means of contraception!

However, I do strongly believe that the law should allow women to make their own minds up on this very difficult moral issue.

Apart from anything else, as we have seen (e.g. the case in Ireland that I cited), black-and-white laws inspired by theology can lead to very undesirable outcomes.

It is not up to a man to make that decision for a woman! Or another woman, for that matter.

Franco


By your own theory it's not a difficult moral issue at all. According to you, babies in the womb are only embryos, and embryos are not human. You bask in a mystical doctrine that in exiting the womb, the being magically and instantaneously becomes human. One minute before birth, not human. One minute after birth, hey presto! A human being, endowed with rights!
"Sorry, kid, you're on the wrong side of the vagina! Tough luck!" You're just a clump of cells."
"Are you all coming to my embryo party?"
"An ultrasound! Let's see what our embryo looks like!"
"Wow! Look at her embryo bump!"
"The doctor said my clump of cells needs the best nourishment it can get."
Etc.

So where's the moral difficulty in this view of yours?

Black and white laws inspired by theology are what created the civil society that you take for granted. "All men are created equal." If that wasn't inspired by theology, then nothing is.


... has admitted defeat...

I asked what the moral difficulty is, you refuse to answer, and then declare victory on the topic. It is obvious that you DO recognize that your stated view that a baby is not human until born is not actually true - or else there would BE no moral difficulty.

(You also treat theology as sheer nonsense, even though you bask in the insistence on human equality provided by that "nonsense". I also offered the beginning of a response to your other questions, on rape and capital punishment, and you have responded to neither. You have said nothing either to Kiessling or Steve Robinson.

And then you claim victory in debate? Silence on addressed points is concession of defeat, not a basis for victory in debate.

rusmeister
07-06-2015, 05:18
FB, I hold a world view that sees man as an eternal being. Murder is horrible because it is destruction of the image of God.
It took quite a lot to convince me that I could admit that a society has a right to execute criminals in certain cases; suffice to say, you would have to know a LOT more than you do now, since you know nothing of theology and think it purely imaginary, about as uninformed a view as one could have. I will offer the podcast series that convinced me that (although we can never justify the errors of a society) I have to concede the right of a society to put people to death for heinous crimes:
http://www.ancientfaith.com/podcasts/stevethebuilder/capital_punishment_part_1
That's the first one, if you are honestly interested, I can refer you to the rest, though you should be able to find them easily on your own.

But I am extremely skeptical that I can say anything that you could hear. You have shown that you deny to a baby of eight months in the womb humanity and personhood; there were people in America who thought blacks were not human and it took a civil war and a century of struggle aferward to establish the social consensus there that they are.


Thank you:) Quod erat demonstrandum.

Indeed it IS demonstrated.
Please note that you can both read AND listen to Steve's podcasts; I recommend listening; the human voice provides additional context absent in mere text.

The question is whether you will respond to any of that. I am not especially hopeful, but am open to being surprised.

This still leaves post 116 unresponded to.
http://expat.ru/forum/showpost.php?p=1420123&postcount=116

You want to claim that my views are mindless and based only on believing what I am told without thinking; that Church teaching has no rational basis; well I just proved you wrong, and that's only a beginning.

rusmeister
07-06-2015, 05:37
I have read up on and watched videos of Rebecca Kiessling and do understand where you're coming from. All I am saying is it would take something incredible for any woman to go through with that type of pregnancy after and as a result of something so horrible with their sanity intact. Strictly speaking, the best solution would be to have the baby and give it up for adoption making sure he/she will never know the story of their conception (you will disagree, but that is my strong opinion) - but, that is far easier said than done (for a ton of obvious reasons) and the above still holds true... Now that is an INCREDIBLY difficult moral issue I sincerely hope none of us ever have to deal with!

No one would argue that rape is a horrible thing. Indeed, my acceptance of the death penalty is based on what I see to be true: that we are eternal beings; we all must die, and it the orientation of our souls, towards God, and away from self, or vice-versa, that determine our eternal "vector". It could truly be said that we make heaven or hell for ourselves, and making a person face up to death gives them a final chance to repent, to realize that there is no more time, that there can be no more life without repentance. But setting that aside, your only defense of abortion in this case is the mother's alleged sanity. This means you are telling Rebecca that it is legitimate to put her to death because her mother MIGHT go insane. Now going literally insane is not at all the same as experiencing horrible trauma, and while I agree that the burden of a pregnancy from a hateful rape is terrible, I do not agree that it causes genuine insanity. Whether even genuine insanity should mean that a human being should be put to death is hard to defend, if it be admitted that the being to be killed is indeed human, but frankly, insanity doesn't fly as a legitimate defense of abortion. Yes, the victim's life is changed; I would argue that it has already been changed by the rape, and cannot be undone by compounding the rape with making the victim guilty of subsequent murder, whatever excuse for the murder is offered.

Please don't take this the wrong way, but I think Rebecca has the right to slap anyone in the face who tells her what you're saying. None of us could admit a tacit right to actually snuff out our lives. You can't tell the lucky survivors of proposed abortion that it's actually OK to kill them. Unfortunately, not that many survive the attempt. Dead men tell no tales. That's what make Rebecca's and Gianna Jessen's stories so powerful.
Jessen addressing the Australian Parliament:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kPF1FhCMPuQ

vossy7
07-06-2015, 07:21
Looks like Franco and Pen were like the mice arguing about who would go and tie the bell to the sleeping cat's tail.....and now look what you have done :wazzup:

natlee
08-06-2015, 00:24
Yup, two threads full of those two flirting!

Now, Rus... A bit of a waste but what the heck...


Yes, the victim's life is changed; I would argue that it has already been changed by the rape, and cannot be undone by compounding the rape with making the victim guilty of subsequent murder, whatever excuse for the murder is offered.

Yes, the victim's life is changed (or, rather, er, never mind) by the rape, so rather than start working to rebuild it straight away when there's still a decent chance for complete recovery let's make her go through another 9 months of agony to make it next to impossible for her to come out of it happy and healthy.

The victim could be anyone - she may be engaged to marry or be a (single?) mother to three other children barely making ends meet, or she may have cancer and have to die in order to have that baby :nut: Regardless, chances are she will receive zero support in her decision to go through with the pregnancy with her fiance/husband leaving and family turning away. (As I'm sure you're very aware of the fact that you would happen to be one of very few people to jump with joy upon learning of her decision - in theory anyway, for, needless to say, I do not wish this situation on your family.) Now, say that she, just as you preach, has chosen life over death/murder. What will she then tell her children (among other people) when she gives it up for adoption - you don't seriously expect her to keep the baby to then see the eyes of the rapist in the eyes of her child, raise a reminder of the worst thing that's ever happened to her? Let's be serious here, it is quite some feckin' change for if she and her family are to have any privacy at all then she would most probably have to drop everything and move the minute she learns about the pregnancy, because you can hardly keep a pregnancy hidden (well, rarely), and few would have it in them after such trauma to be all smiles in front of the people around them (or would you expect them to give their children, extended family, friends and neighbors the full details of the conception?) and then tell a quiet lie about the death of the baby or look them straight in the eye and tell them you had just happened to decide you didn't want this particular baby for yourself (unless you'd expect them to tell the whole truth in the first place!) I'm talking about a very strong woman here, because many would've jumped out of the window straight after learning the news, if not after the crime itself!

I understand that you will tell me that none of the above is reason enough to take away an innocent life, but I'm simply telling you what would be going through the (very traumatized) woman's mind and I'm sorry but I will not in a million years advise her to keep the baby telling her that an abortion would be a horrible sin despite the circumstances surrounding it. While I genuinely believe that two consenting (!) adults should understand all the possible consequences before engaging into sex and be prepared for them (condoms occasionally break, pills fail to do the job etc.) if/once they've decided to engage in it, a victim of rape is just as innocent as the life growing inside her (and so are her partner and existing children, if any), less the very likely evil gene (please don't knock it off - most rapists aren't exactly the sanest of people!)


Now going literally insane is not at all the same as experiencing horrible trauma, and while I agree that the burden of a pregnancy from a hateful rape is terrible, I do not agree that it causes genuine insanity.

You do not agree? LOL! Because you know for a fact that none do in this situation? (Not that you would know many who've gone through with such pregnancies!) And Rus, insanity per se or a broken life - what's the big difference in the grand scheme of things?

I'd have to say that I tend to look at it as self-defense. Say, a child points his father's gun at you and is about to shoot you dead. Would you try to save yourself if it meant killing that child?


Whether even genuine insanity should mean that a human being should be put to death is hard to defend, if it be admitted that the being to be killed is indeed human, but frankly, insanity doesn't fly as a legitimate defense of abortion. Yes, the victim's life is changed; I would argue that it has already been changed by the rape, and cannot be undone by compounding the rape with making the victim guilty of subsequent murder, whatever excuse for the murder is offered. People have been known to resort to suicide for far lesser problems, and these women may have other children they would be leaving behind.


Please don't take this the wrong way, but I think Rebecca has the right to slap anyone in the face who tells her what you're saying. :D

You will hate me for this, but my take is that while I do feel for Rebecca and she seems a genuinely wonderful person, I will still say that she has no right to demand a ban on abortions - she should instead be suggesting that the victims think about going through with the pregnancies, for some products of rape turn out to be decent human beings against all odds.

This is a difficult issue for me, because I tend to believe in meant to be. Could the product of rape have been meant to be? If Rebecca was part of God's plan, does that mean that part of God's plan was to put Rebecca's mother through the horrific thing that happened to her?

As far as Gianna Jessen's case - a completely different story, and her parents (in the face of the 'doctor') did or, rather, tried to do an absolutely horrible, unforgivable thing, to what we should all be able to agree was already a fully developed HUMAN. I see a big difference between murder and brutal murder, and they were committing the latter.

P.S. I'm all for every kind of support being provided to victims of rape for them to be able to deal with and afford to give birth to these babies should they find it in them to do the honorable thing. I'm against forcing them to!

Uncle Wally
08-06-2015, 00:38
Yup, two threads full of those two flirting!

Now, Rus... A bit of a waste but what the heck...



Yes, the victim's life is changed (or, rather, er, never mind) by the rape, so rather than start working to rebuild it straight away when there's still a decent chance for complete recovery let's make her go through another 9 months of agony to make it next to impossible for her to come out of it happy and healthy.

The victim could be anyone - she may be engaged to marry or be a (single?) mother to three other children barely making ends meet, or she may have cancer and have to die in order to have that baby :nut: Regardless, chances are she will receive zero support in her decision to go through with the pregnancy with her fiance/husband leaving and family turning away. (As I'm sure you're very aware of the fact that you would happen to be one of very few people to jump with joy upon learning of her decision - in theory anyway, for, needless to say, I do not wish this situation on your family.) Now, say that she, just as you preach, has chosen life over death/murder. What will she then tell her children (among other people) when she gives it up for adoption - you don't seriously expect her to keep the baby to then see the eyes of the rapist in the eyes of her child, raise a reminder of the worst thing that's ever happened to her? Let's be serious here, it is quite some fecking change for if she and her family are to have any privacy at all then she would most probably have to drop everything and move the minute she learns about the pregnancy, because you can hardly keep a pregnancy hidden (well, rarely), and few would have it in them after such trauma to be all smiles in front of the people around them (or would you expect them to give their children, extended family, friends and neighbors the full details of the conception?) and then tell a quiet lie about the death of the baby or look them straight in the eye and tell them you had just happened to decide you didn't want this particular baby for yourself (unless you'd expect them to tell the whole truth in the first place!) I'm talking about a very strong woman here, because many would've jumped out of the window straight after learning the news, if not after the crime itself!

I understand that you will tell me that none of the above is reason enough to take away an innocent life, but I'm simply telling you what would be going through the (very traumatized) woman's mind and I'm sorry but I will not in a million years advise her to keep the baby telling her that an abortion would be a horrible sin despite the circumstances surrounding it. While I genuinely believe that two consenting (!) adults should understand all the possible consequences before engaging into sex and be prepared for them (condoms occasionally break, pills fail to do the job etc.) if/once they've decided to engage in it, a victim of rape is just as innocent as the life growing inside her (and so are her partner and existing children, if any), less the very likely evil gene (please don't knock it off - most rapists aren't exactly the sanest of people!)



You do not agree? LOL! Because you know for a fact that none do in this situation? (Not that you would know many who've gone through with such pregnancies!) And Rus, insanity per se or a broken life - what's the big difference in the grand scheme of things?

I'd have to say that I tend to look at it as self-defense. Say, a child points his father's gun at you and is about to shoot you dead. Would you try to save yourself if it meant killing that child?

People have been known to resort to suicide for far lesser problems, and these women may have other children they would be leaving behind.

:D

You will hate me for this, but my take is that while I do feel for Rebecca and she seems a genuinely wonderful person, I will still say that she has no right to demand a ban on abortions - she should instead be suggesting that the victims think about going through with the pregnancies, for some products of rape turn out to be decent human beings against all odds.

This is a difficult issue for me, because I tend to believe in meant to be. Could the product of rape have been meant to be? If Rebecca was part of God's plan, then part of God's plan was to put Rebecca's mother through the horrific thing that happened to her?

As far as Gianna Jessen's case - a completely different story, and her parents (in the face of the 'doctor') did or, rather, tried to do an absolutely horrible, unforgivable thing, to what we should all be able to agree was already a fully developed HUMAN.

P.S. I'm all for every kind of support being provided to victims of rape for them to be able to deal with and afford to give birth to these babies should they find it in them to do the honorable thing. I'm against forcing them to!




Why bother? Rus just has his beliefs and if you don't believe like him you are just no good! Didn't Stalin, Hitler, George Bush all think like that? I don't know why he worries so much if we're all going to paid for our sins. Hell the little baby killed are all going to heaven aren't they? I mean they had no time to sin so maybe they're luckier then us poor sinners who will have to burn in hell forever. Rus if you can look at it like that the "killers" would be doing them a favor.


You should never"force" anyone to do anything. I can think of no bigger sin than that.

rusmeister
08-06-2015, 05:40
Why bother? Rus just has his beliefs and if you don't believe like him you are just no good! Didn't Stalin, Hitler, George Bush all think like that? I don't know why he worries so much if we're all going to paid for our sins. Hell the little baby killed are all going to heaven aren't they? I mean they had no time to sin so maybe they're luckier then us poor sinners who will have to burn in hell forever. Rus if you can look at it like that the "killers" would be doing them a favor.


You should never"force" anyone to do anything. I can think of no bigger sin than that.
UW, I honestly think that you have little to no idea of what I understand about heaven and hell, and just impose the ideas of some fundamentalist Baptist maiden aunt of yours onto me.

If "forcing anyone to do anything" is the biggest sin (another conception you get wrong from your aunt), then all parents and all police are criminals, however idealistic. You do believe in forcing people to do what you think is right and prevent them from doing what you think is wrong.

rusmeister
08-06-2015, 06:03
Yup, two threads full of those two flirting!

Now, Rus... A bit of a waste but what the heck...



Yes, the victim's life is changed (or, rather, er, never mind) by the rape, so rather than start working to rebuild it straight away when there's still a decent chance for complete recovery let's make her go through another 9 months of agony to make it next to impossible for her to come out of it happy and healthy.

The victim could be anyone - she may be engaged to marry or be a (single?) mother to three other children barely making ends meet, or she may have cancer and have to die in order to have that baby :nut: Regardless, chances are she will receive zero support in her decision to go through with the pregnancy with her fiance/husband leaving and family turning away. (As I'm sure you're very aware of the fact that you would happen to be one of very few people to jump with joy upon learning of her decision - in theory anyway, for, needless to say, I do not wish this situation on your family.) Now, say that she, just as you preach, has chosen life over death/murder. What will she then tell her children (among other people) when she gives it up for adoption - you don't seriously expect her to keep the baby to then see the eyes of the rapist in the eyes of her child, raise a reminder of the worst thing that's ever happened to her? Let's be serious here, it is quite some feckin' change for if she and her family are to have any privacy at all then she would most probably have to drop everything and move the minute she learns about the pregnancy, because you can hardly keep a pregnancy hidden (well, rarely), and few would have it in them after such trauma to be all smiles in front of the people around them (or would you expect them to give their children, extended family, friends and neighbors the full details of the conception?) and then tell a quiet lie about the death of the baby or look them straight in the eye and tell them you had just happened to decide you didn't want this particular baby for yourself (unless you'd expect them to tell the whole truth in the first place!) I'm talking about a very strong woman here, because many would've jumped out of the window straight after learning the news, if not after the crime itself!

I understand that you will tell me that none of the above is reason enough to take away an innocent life, but I'm simply telling you what would be going through the (very traumatized) woman's mind and I'm sorry but I will not in a million years advise her to keep the baby telling her that an abortion would be a horrible sin despite the circumstances surrounding it. While I genuinely believe that two consenting (!) adults should understand all the possible consequences before engaging into sex and be prepared for them (condoms occasionally break, pills fail to do the job etc.) if/once they've decided to engage in it, a victim of rape is just as innocent as the life growing inside her (and so are her partner and existing children, if any), less the very likely evil gene (please don't knock it off - most rapists aren't exactly the sanest of people!)



You do not agree? LOL! Because you know for a fact that none do in this situation? (Not that you would know many who've gone through with such pregnancies!) And Rus, insanity per se or a broken life - what's the big difference in the grand scheme of things?

I'd have to say that I tend to look at it as self-defense. Say, a child points his father's gun at you and is about to shoot you dead. Would you try to save yourself if it meant killing that child?

People have been known to resort to suicide for far lesser problems, and these women may have other children they would be leaving behind.

:D

You will hate me for this, but my take is that while I do feel for Rebecca and she seems a genuinely wonderful person, I will still say that she has no right to demand a ban on abortions - she should instead be suggesting that the victims think about going through with the pregnancies, for some products of rape turn out to be decent human beings against all odds.

This is a difficult issue for me, because I tend to believe in meant to be. Could the product of rape have been meant to be? If Rebecca was part of God's plan, does that mean that part of God's plan was to put Rebecca's mother through the horrific thing that happened to her?

As far as Gianna Jessen's case - a completely different story, and her parents (in the face of the 'doctor') did or, rather, tried to do an absolutely horrible, unforgivable thing, to what we should all be able to agree was already a fully developed HUMAN. I see a big difference between murder and brutal murder, and they were committing the latter.

P.S. I'm all for every kind of support being provided to victims of rape for them to be able to deal with and afford to give birth to these babies should they find it in them to do the honorable thing. I'm against forcing them to!

You know, I think I'll start with a simple moral lesson from the movie "The Iron Giant", when Hogarth teaches the Giant: "It's bad to kill. But it's not bad to die."

This is foundational. We all must die. Dying is by no means the worst thing we can do, though we are right to want to live.

I see no moral difference between murder and "brutal" murder, as if the refinement of the murder made it somehow "OK". The Nazis were VERY refined in the death camps. The murder of Litvinenko was very refined; plutonium in one's tea, how civilized!

Re Rebecca, I think you utterly fail to even try to put yourself into her position. It's an easy skill, once you learn it: to imagine, as fully as you can, that you actually ARE someone else, and thinking about what things look like from that standpoint. And you just aren't making the imaginative effort to say, "OK, I AM a child of rape. I've grown up, lived this life, loved these people, and experienced all of these amazing things, and now someone says that it is OK to kill anyone like me at will, to make what does happen not happen, to nullify my life, or the life of anyone like me."

There can be no such thing as "a complete recovery" after rape; that's why I can grant the death penalty as a legitimate social option. Your complete recovery leaves both a raped woman and a doubly violated body and a dead child. THAT's your "complete recovery". And God forbid that she should ever come to realize the truth, that it IS the taking of human life, because then her conscience will be seared, not only by the memory of what was done to her in rape, but by the realization of what she herself has done to somebody else. THAT is just as liable to 'drive her insane' as you put it.

Here you are doing exactly what Penka, FB and the others are doing; ignoring the truth of what abortion is for the sake of one's desires, one's convenience.

The truth is VERY inconvenient. In these tragedies we speak of, it is VERY painful. But it is no cure to exchange the truth for a lie because the lie seems less painful. The only real healing comes from facing the truth.

Uncle Wally
08-06-2015, 13:40
UW, I honestly think that you have little to no idea of what I understand about heaven and hell, and just impose the ideas of some fundamentalist Baptist maiden aunt of yours onto me.

If "forcing anyone to do anything" is the biggest sin (another conception you get wrong from your aunt), then all parents and all police are criminals, however idealistic. You do believe in forcing people to do what you think is right and prevent them from doing what you think is wrong.

You understand what you are told to understand, nothing more. My aunt was not a Baptists, My family is Italian with a little Russian, Catholic but we really weren't church going.

I believe that people can do what ever they want as long as it doesn't hurt someone else and that goes for their body too. I think abortion is the wrong way to go but it's not up to you or me to tell others how they should think. If you would really like to know I think the idea of heaven and hell is just about the most foolish thing I ever heard of.

rusmeister
08-06-2015, 16:01
You understand what you are told to understand, nothing more.

Penia made the same mistake as you. I showed that she was wrong and she has dropped that claim for now. Obviously you didn't bother reading my response. Here it is:
http://expat.ru/forum/showpost.php?p=1420123&postcount=116


My aunt was not a Baptists, My family is Italian with a little Russian, Catholic but we really weren't church going.

You completely miss my point. It doesn't matter whose aunt it is; the point is that you imagine me as having straw man beliefs that are not mine. Anyone can paint a stupid and false picture of another's beliefs. There CAN be correct simplifications, but yours isn't.


I believe that people can do what ever they want as long as it doesn't hurt someone else and that goes for their body too.
We mostly agree. Only the baby growing INSIDE the mother is NOT part of the mother's body! Does the mother have two hearts? Two brains? Etc.


I think abortion is the wrong way to go but it's not up to you or me to tell others how they should think. If you would really like to know I think the idea of heaven and hell is just about the most foolish thing I ever heard of.

If that is true, then it is true for anything, including Hitler's racist ideas, pedophile's thoughts (which are always the thing actions spring from), Hannibal Lecter's thoughts, and a thousand other heinous examples. So, of course, it is NOT true; there ARE points where it IS up to us to tell others what to think. You need actual truth, though, to be able to do that.

And I could agree, perhaps YOUR conception of heaven and hell IS incredibly foolish. I'm saying that you have no conception of MY understanding.

rusmeister
08-06-2015, 21:48
I believe that people can do what ever they want as long as it doesn't hurt someone else and that goes for their body too.

When you can SEE that you are saying that people CAN hurt the someone else inside of them, then the self-contradiction becomes obvious.

There is only one correct opinion, and that is that abortion is murder. All talk to the contrary is lies and self-deception.

francobritannique
08-06-2015, 22:06
Here is the last post in which FB addressed abortion:
I asked what the moral difficulty is, you refuse to answer, and then declare victory on the topic. It is obvious that you DO recognize that your stated view that a baby is not human until born is not actually true - or else there would BE no moral difficulty.

(You also treat theology as sheer nonsense, even though you bask in the insistence on human equality provided by that "nonsense". I also offered the beginning of a response to your other questions, on rape and capital punishment, and you have responded to neither. You have said nothing either to Kiessling or Steve Robinson.

And then you claim victory in debate? Silence on addressed points is concession of defeat, not a basis for victory in debate.

Rus,

By the very fact that we are having this debate it is obvious that this is a contentious issue and that different individuals have different views of its moral dimension. I presume that you do not disagree?

My point is that it is neither you, nor I, nor anyone else, should impose their moral judgement on a woman who decides she wishes or needs to terminate a pregnancy (especially early in that pregnancy, or where the continuation of the pregnancy would pose a danger to the mother).

As for theology being "sheer nonsense", it is the study of one particular mythological system and, as such, has no intrinsic moral value beyond, say, the study of Greek mythology or any other. It does so happen that many (not all) of the moral teachings of many variants of Christianity have a lot in common with what we might consider universal human truths - so we can at least agree on that. I personally do not believe that one needs to believe in a god to be good or moral, and that it is entirely possible to create a moral code that is independent of any supernatural belief.

As for abortion - you will not convince me, and I am sure I will not convince you.

I, however, will continue to argue strongly for a woman's right to determine what happens to her own body.

Franco

PS - you still haven't told me if you agreed with the Galway hospital's refusal of the life-saving abortion to that woman

natlee
08-06-2015, 23:19
I see no moral difference between murder and "brutal" murder, as if the refinement of the murder made it somehow "OK". When it's your loved one who has died, I'm sure you will care that they died a quick painless death rather than suffered torture. I see a huge difference between aborting a pregnancy of a few weeks and 7 months.

I understand and respect your position Rus, but my (unanswered) questions remain the same. Do you expect the victim of rape to raise the product of rape, too, and regardless of personal circumstances?

So if a single working mother is barely making ends meet, she must quit her job, stick an extra bed into her three children's bedroom and expect God to pay the rent and food bills, or will you personally help each and every pregnant victim of rape?

rusmeister
08-06-2015, 23:40
Rus,

By the very fact that we are having this debate it is obvious that this is a contentious issue and that different individuals have different views of its moral dimension. I presume that you do not disagree?

My point is that it is neither you, nor I, nor anyone else, should impose their moral judgement on a woman who decides she wishes or needs to terminate a pregnancy (especially early in that pregnancy, or where the continuation of the pregnancy would pose a danger to the mother).

As for theology being "sheer nonsense", it is the study of one particular mythological system and, as such, has no intrinsic moral value beyond, say, the study of Greek mythology or any other. It does so happen that many (not all) of the moral teachings of many variants of Christianity have a lot in common with what we might consider universal human truths - so we can at least agree on that. I personally do not believe that one needs to believe in a god to be good or moral, and that it is entirely possible to create a moral code that is independent of any supernatural belief.

As for abortion - you will not convince me, and I am sure I will not convince you.

I, however, will continue to argue strongly for a woman's right to determine what happens to her own body.

Franco

PS - you still haven't told me if you agreed with the Galway hospital's refusal of the life-saving abortion to that woman

FB, it is contentious ONLY because people desire the sex act to be separated from its natural consequence of childbirth. If you stop trying to do that, then there is no contention whatsoever. If you admit that any such act might produce children that you would have to take responsibility for, then you would no longer contend. But that's the whole point, isn't it? You want the pleasure with no consequences, and when a consequence rears its head, or rather forms one, you want to get rid of it and continue to get the pleasure consequence-free. And it means pretending that the conceived child is not human.
Then you drag in the small minority of pregnancies that result from violence, and use those as the prime justification. That or the fact that children cost money - but then, you are obviously appealing to killing for convenience, thus the excessive insistence on rape.

I could equally speak of a "different views of a moral dimension" between us and mafiosi over the justification for murder - of Nemtsov, for instance. But such talk is BS. Thete is only one moral view. You can "disagree", but you are wrong, plain and simple. You willingly deceive yourself, and others as well. The picture above shows the lie (which you have acceptd; I grant that you do not intend to deliberately deceive) in your ideas. The only moral thing you can do is admit that the baby in the mother is human, killing it is evil, and abandon your talk. There is nothing left to say to you. Your views will, and must, eventually, become criminal, as well as evil. You should make them not yours as quickly as possible. I have already agreed that a woman has certain rights over HER OWN body. But if you can't see that the baby above is NOT "a body part" of the mother, but a new individual human being, then you are blind by your own choice.

Your talk of theology would deserve a separate thread, but if you can't see the human being inside the mother above, then you won't see any plain truth in front of your nose, and so the discussion would be worthless.

Sorry, FB. No compromise, no "agree to disagree". You are wrong, and there is nothing more to say. It took a civil war to end slavery; I would say that any nation that cannot see this plain moral truth deserves to be so torn apart.

Uncle Wally
08-06-2015, 23:48
When you can SEE that you are saying that people CAN hurt the someone else inside of them, then the self-contradiction becomes obvious.

There is only one correct opinion, and that is that abortion is murder. All talk to the contrary is lies and self-deception.



Rus that looks like a baby that is just about to be born. See it's head down meaning it's ready. But you will stoop to anything to make your point I guess.


It is still inside someone's body so it's up to that person to decide what to do. Like if they knew they would die along with the baby I can fully understand that.

rusmeister
08-06-2015, 23:50
When it's your loved one who has died, I'm sure you will care that they died a quick painless death rather than suffered torture. I see a huge difference between aborting a pregnancy of a few weeks and 7 months.

I understand and respect your position Rus, but my (unanswered) questions remain the same. Do you expect the victim of rape to raise the product of rape, too, and regardless of personal circumstances?

So if a single working mother is barely making ends meet, she must quit her job, stick an extra bed into her three children's bedroom and expect God to pay the rent and food bills, or will you personally help each and every pregnant victim of rape?

I am speaking about doing what is right, Natlee. Doing what is right can be hard. Very hard. It may mean, for instance, refusing to shoot innocent civilians, knowing that you yourself will be shot for refusing to obey the order. I do not say that doing right is easy. I only say that it is necessary. My helping or not helping is irrelevant to that. It may be that I am able to help someone. I do engage in local charity, including families in difficult circumstances. But your doing right should not depend on whether I, or anyone, will help you. Hopefully that answers your questions.

That leaves only one issue. When do you suppose the being inside the mother becomes human? On what basis do you suppose that? If we test that basis on other cases, will that basis hold up? The point is that ANY point you choose would be arbitrary, based on criteria you choose yourself, which anyone can dispute. There is only one clear and unarguable point, before which no baby results, and after which a baby will certainly result, unless the being is killed.

If the being is human at seven weeks, then killing it is just as murderous as at twenty, or thirty-six. That it is smaller, and its cleft palate not formed yet, or whatever, does not change that fact. So any argument you construct would have to be of your own invention; its only purpose: to justify abortion. And other clever devils will immediately use that to justify other things you never thought possible.

This is the response to UW's post, as well. If demonstrating that babies are in fact human is "stooping", then
I will cheerfully "stoop" as often as necessary. Your position, UW, is not logical. You cannot define a point at which a baby becomes human that is not arbitrary, of your own invention, unless you concede that that point is conception.

francobritannique
09-06-2015, 00:22
FB, it is contentious ONLY because people desire the sex act to be separated from its natural consequence of childbirth. If you stop trying to do that, then there is no contention whatsoever. If you admit that any such act might produce children that you would have to take responsibility for, then you would no longer contend. But that's the whole point, isn't it? You want the pleasure with no consequences, and when a consequence rears its head, or rather forms one, you want to get rid of it and continue to get the pleasure consequence-free. And it means pretending that the conceived child is not human.
Then you drag in the small minority of pregnancies that result from violence, and use those as the prime justification. That or the fact that children cost money - but then, you are obviously appealing to killing for convenience, thus the excessive insistence on rape.

I could equally speak of a "different views of a moral dimension" between us and mafiosi over the justification for murder - of Nemtsov, for instance. But such talk is BS. Thete is only one moral view. You can "disagree", but you are wrong, plain and simple. You willingly deceive yourself, and others as well. The picture above shows the lie (which you have acceptd; I grant that you do not intend to deliberately deceive) in your ideas. The only moral thing you can do is admit that the baby in the mother is human, killing it is evil, and abandon your talk. There is nothing left to say to you. Your views will, and must, eventually, become criminal, as well as evil. You should make them not yours as quickly as possible. I have already agreed that a woman has certain rights over HER OWN body. But if you can't see that the baby above is NOT "a body part" of the mother, but a new individual human being, then you are blind by your own choice.

Your talk of theology would deserve a separate thread, but if you can't see the human being inside the mother above, then you won't see any plain truth in front of your nose, and so the discussion would be worthless.

Sorry, FB. No compromise, no "agree to disagree". You are wrong, and there is nothing more to say. It took a civil war to end slavery; I would say that any nation that cannot see this plain moral truth deserves to be so torn apart.

Rus,

Will you at least give me your view on the Galway hospital case?

Franco

natlee
09-06-2015, 01:02
Rus,

Will you at least give me your view on the Galway hospital case?

Franco And on whether the victim of rape must raise the child as well as give birth to it?

rusmeister
09-06-2015, 07:08
Rus,

Will you at least give me your view on the Galway hospital case?

Franco

Actually, no. You speak of my world view as "mythology", though you know bext to nothing of what I believe or why I believe it. Since you interpret my responses, not in terms of my world view but in terms of your own, any answer would only result in ridicule on your part.

If we could get to a point where you could say, "OK, let's suppose your view is true...", then maybe answering would have a point.

I have generally refrained from referencing my religion, and have stuck to secular understandings throughout. I DO treat your assumptions on their own terms. You don't do the same for me.

rusmeister
09-06-2015, 07:56
And on whether the victim of rape must raise the child as well as give birth to it?

Adoption is another matter altogether, Natlee.
"Must" is the wrong verb here. "Must" a soldier jump on a grenade to save his fellow soldiers? He has the extra second or two of reaction time to seek cover and let his buddies in the foxhole take the blast. Nor would he be morally evil in doing so. But we recognize the nobler response in the self-sacrifice. We KNOW what the better and more admirable choice is.

Did you see the film "Rob Roy"? Accepting a child of rape was central to the conclusion of the plot. It just illustrates that, expressed in story, we DO know what is best.

We know that the revulsion comes from the fact that the child is the result of the wicked father. But I would ask the mother if she does not recognize that the baby is also hers, is of her flesh and blood as well as his? And again, look at the grown result: Rebecca. We KNOW what the children of rape have to say when we only give them the chance.

So it is BETTER if the mother raise the child as hers. But in cases where she really can't, adoption is perfectly legitimate. Even the children of rape acknowledge that.

francobritannique
09-06-2015, 11:01
Actually, no. You speak of my world view as "mythology", though you know bext to nothing of what I believe or why I believe it. Since you interpret my responses, not in terms of my world view but in terms of your own, any answer would only result in ridicule on your part.

If we could get to a point where you could say, "OK, let's suppose your view is true...", then maybe answering would have a point.

I have generally refrained from referencing my religion, and have stuck to secular understandings throughout. I DO treat your assumptions on their own terms. You don't do the same for me.

Actually, Rus, you have referenced "the Faith" and "theology" and even referenced "fallen mankind" at various points in your argument, and it is you who asserted that I was claiming that theology was nonsense... So to claim that you have made secular arguments is, frankly, disingenuous.

Did you forget about your "Faith" reference? Or your mention of "theology"? Or the reference to "fallen mankind"?

I have no idea what you believe, but since you talk of "Faith", I assumed that it is religious in some way. So, no different from any other mythology. Unless you can enlighten me? Is your "Faith" a secular one (sounds like a contradiction in terms to me...)?

I find it very interesting that you will not give your view on the Galway case.

Franco

shurale
09-06-2015, 11:16
Rus, what is your view of them?

rusmeister
09-06-2015, 14:57
Actually, Rus, you have referenced "the Faith" and "theology" and even referenced "fallen mankind" at various points in your argument, and it is you who asserted that I was claiming that theology was nonsense... So to claim that you have made secular arguments is, frankly, disingenuous.

Did you forget about your "Faith" reference? Or your mention of "theology"? Or the reference to "fallen mankind"?

I have no idea what you believe, but since you talk of "Faith", I assumed that it is religious in some way. So, no different from any other mythology. Unless you can enlighten me? Is your "Faith" a secular one (sounds like a contradiction in terms to me...)?

I find it very interesting that you will not give your view on the Galway case.

Franco
As I said, I have no trouble expressing my view on "the Galway case" to someone who can say, "OK, supposing your overarching view of reality is true...", because then they can see how we see the case of a woman, a baby, and lives in the balance. A person who cannot say that and for a minute make the imaginative effort to suppose that will only mock and sneer: for that would ge prejudice and bigotry ( the irreligious kind), and it is useless to speak to that.

My faith has solid rational foundations. There is a point, of course, that cannot be proven; a choice of faith IS required. But accepting it "turns the lights on", makes sense of what is otherwise an ultimately senseless world and existence.
Mythology is not a synonynom of "falsehood". Rather, the ancient pagans sought the truth, and found and expressed it in part. Myths, while not themselves reality, can be mirrors of reality. But thinking about what I see to be true begins, not in "what churchmen tell me", but what I can see with my own eyes, the behavior of people on the street, and the selfish desires I can see in my own heart.

If I speak about sin, I speak of an objective, provable thing, most often seen in what we call "selfishness". So if we can admit that the concept of sin is not especially a "religious" concept, but an observable phenomenon, we can proceed further. "The Fall" is a rational explanation that explains aspects of human existence that make little or no sense in materialist explanations, to wit, of both our desire to do good and the fact that we more often choose selfishness (materialism explains the selfishness, but generally flubs the desire to do good, sacrifice the self, etc), of both the fact that we die and the fact that we fear death, of our desire for meaning that transcends our lives.

On the whole, I do not say "The Bible says" or "God says". I say, for example, that we find murder and rape abhorrent, and that people will go to nearly any length to achieve approval of their own sexual desires. That is what I mean by speaking in secular terms. I am trying to speak, to the maximum extent possible, on the same playing field as you, from as many common points of reference as possible. My arguments HAVE been secular. They ask whether a being is human, not whether God created us, though I noted as an aside that there is no basis for insisting on human equality if we were not all created equal; if we were not created equally, then we certainly evolved unequally, and in that case Nietzsche is right and the attitude of human equality a mere sentiment. I don't think that is true, but that is what logic dictates without relying on religious dogmas (that you hold irreligious dogmas is another point). So no, no disingenuity.

At any rate, this is another, if related discussion to the issue of abortion. That one is "game over", babies are human even in the womb, there is no point other than conception at which a human being can be objectively declared to be such, and so abortion is the killing of a human being in the womb. This is a form of murder by human tradition in general, let alone what all of Western society understood until very recently, when technology enabled people to (try to) separate the sex act from its primary function, resulting in our modern insanity and millions of abortions annually despite the slogans of "safe, rare, and legal".

penka
09-06-2015, 19:06
Hey Rus!

I did not respond to your quote above not because I agreed with but because I got bored to death. As I've said a few times before, you do not debate, you seek the confirmation of your wording, which in reality is not even your wording, if your are familiar with Michail Bachtin's terminology.

And you do certainly have your personal reasons to "win". Selfish, maybe. Touching in a sense, most certainly.

The "truth" which you defence with such ferocity and claim to be a non-religious one is also nothing but a religious concept; and if you claim yourself to be a Christian Orthodox, it is an ill-comprehended one, as well.

For a reason, you refuse to address the medical language I use when it comes to a foetus' stages - that simply won't serve any purpose for you. The truth which you are so desperately trying to present as scientific, objective and rock-solid - the truth on the value of a human life, all of a sudden turns out to be not that, as you accept a capital punishment. Capital punishment = death sentence, to stress since you've mistaken a "murder" metaphor in a lyrical text for an actual act of murder some time ago.

In two other threads a member "fenrir" (fenrir, a wolf, was a son of Loki, a destructive god in Norse and Germanic mythology) claimed to read and love the good book eagerly. From a Christian one could have expected the values of peace, forgiveness and kindness as virtues. However, in another thread, fenrir praised the nuking of the civil population of Japan.
What is the major difference between him and you?

It is a hypocrisy at large, nothing else. All the truths are bendable. Different points of view are inaccptable. He focuses on politics and the badness of Russia, you - on the immorality of everyone else who disagrees with your concept of truth.

Care to count, how many times you talk of I, me and I in your last post?....

Uncle Wally
09-06-2015, 23:23
Hey Rus!

I did not respond to your quote above not because I agreed with but because I got bored to death. As I've said a few times before, you do not debate, you seek the confirmation of your wording, which in reality is not even your wording, if your are familiar with Michail Bachtin's terminology.

And you do certainly have your personal reasons to "win". Selfish, maybe. Touching in a sense, most certainly.

The "truth" which you defence with such ferocity and claim to be a non-religious one is also nothing but a religious concept; and if you claim yourself to be a Christian Orthodox, it is an ill-comprehended one, as well.

For a reason, you refuse to address the medical language I use when it comes to a foetus' stages - that simply won't serve any purpose for you. The truth which you are so desperately trying to present as scientific, objective and rock-solid - the truth on the value of a human life, all of a sudden turns out to be not that, as you accept a capital punishment. Capital punishment = death sentence, to stress since you've mistaken a "murder" metaphor in a lyrical text for an actual act of murder some time ago.

In two other threads a member "fenrir" (fenrir, a wolf, was a son of Loki, a destructive god in Norse and Germanic mythology) claimed to read and love the good book eagerly. From a Christian one could have expected the values of peace, forgiveness and kindness as virtues. However, in another thread, fenrir praised the nuking of the civil population of Japan.
What is the major difference between him and you?

It is a hypocrisy at large, nothing else. All the truths are bendable. Different points of view are inaccptable. He focuses on politics and the badness of Russia, you - on the immorality of everyone else who disagrees with your concept of truth.

Care to count, how many times you talk of I, me and I in your last post?....



You are talking to a guy who believes in fairy tales written in a book and then talks about "truths" delusional comes to mind. Fantasy is another thing that comes to mind. They're breeding some whoppers over there in America.

rusmeister
10-06-2015, 08:09
Hey Rus!

I did not respond to your quote above not because I agreed with but because I got bored to death. As I've said a few times before, you do not debate, you seek the confirmation of your wording, which in reality is not even your wording, if your are familiar with Michail Bachtin's terminology.

And you do certainly have your personal reasons to "win". Selfish, maybe. Touching in a sense, most certainly.

The "truth" which you defence with such ferocity and claim to be a non-religious one is also nothing but a religious concept; and if you claim yourself to be a Christian Orthodox, it is an ill-comprehended one, as well.

For a reason, you refuse to address the medical language I use when it comes to a foetus' stages - that simply won't serve any purpose for you. The truth which you are so desperately trying to present as scientific, objective and rock-solid - the truth on the value of a human life, all of a sudden turns out to be not that, as you accept a capital punishment. Capital punishment = death sentence, to stress since you've mistaken a "murder" metaphor in a lyrical text for an actual act of murder some time ago.

In two other threads a member "fenrir" (fenrir, a wolf, was a son of Loki, a destructive god in Norse and Germanic mythology) claimed to read and love the good book eagerly. From a Christian one could have expected the values of peace, forgiveness and kindness as virtues. However, in another thread, fenrir praised the nuking of the civil population of Japan.
What is the major difference between him and you?

It is a hypocrisy at large, nothing else. All the truths are bendable. Different points of view are inaccptable. He focuses on politics and the badness of Russia, you - on the immorality of everyone else who disagrees with your concept of truth.

Care to count, how many times you talk of I, me and I in your last post?....

Ah, Penka, assertions, assertions...

I think the truth to be completely the reverse; your own words apply to you.

You can use any medical term you like; the question is, of course, what assumptions are behind your use of the word. I have no problem with you speaking of zygotes, embryos and fetuses as long as you recognize that we are still talking about a human being. It is when that basic philosophical truth is (eagerly) forgotten that we must turn to language that more clearly asserts the fetus's humanity, that the human is alive, and must be killed to make him or her stop living, and if we let them live long enough to acquire a voice, they affirm unanimously that they want to live, and condemn your defense of a "right" to kill them a-borning. (There can be no "right" to a wrong; if it is wrong, it can't be a right.)

You can talk about my views being "religious"; I cheerfully admit that they are in the popular sense, but am not using religion to debate you. You are right that there is no debate when one side completely ignores what the other side is saying. I don't dismiss your words without public thought on them, I try to address them all.

We agree that peacefulness, forgiveness and kindness are virtues. But you are trying to say that there is nothing to forgive, and you don't like that I am saying that there IS. There can be no genuine peace without truth, which is the thing you deny, making peace impossible. And I do not speak for Fenrir, nor he for me. I do not praise the atomic bombings of 1945; I understand the whys, and think many things wrong with them; that civilian, rather than military targets were effectively chosen, and a number of other objections. That he also comes from a position of (non-Orthodox) faith, to the best of my knowledge, does not mean that we share all views, and I might as well ask what the difference between you and Natlee is if it comes to that.

You keep using this word "hypocrisy". To quote Inego Montoya, "I do not think it means what you think it means", or more accurately, that you misapply the general understanding. It is central Christian teaching that we all ought to be holy, and are not in fact holy. In that sense, EVERYBODY is a hypocrite. But the word becoms meaningless for identifying any specific case of hypocrisy. As a narrower meaning, the particularly heinous thing that really deserves to be condemned above all, is applying teaching to others that one will not apply to oneself. Amd of that charge I am innocent. I say we all ought to strive to be holy and refrain from sin; and I really try to do that, however badly. If I said that YOU should refrain from sin (bent, broken desires and passions, turned away from their proper object, thus the Latin word "perversion") and silently considered that I don't need to follow my own advice, then you would have something. But that's not the case.

You can continue to recast my position as "condemning the immorality of others who disagree with me". But I say that I say the issue is simpler. I have no idea whether you are guilty of anything, and I don't want to know. I have no interest whatsoever in personally condemning you. I myself do not want to be condemned. I'll leave the judging of that to God. But I do say evil is evil, and abortion is murder, and if you "disagree", then you are at best deceived, and at worst deceiving, yourself above all. How many photos of ultrasounds do we need? How many of children and adults expressing thanks that their mothers chose NOT to kill them? How many videos of ultrasound abortions and the baby's futile struggling not to be killed as unimaginable pain enters his life?

When the evidence is staring you in the face, as in the picture above, showing visibly what you can approve only as long as you can't see it, then the only good response is shame and tears. And, referring at last to the religious view I think to be the objective truth which governs us all, whether you know and admit it or not, if any woman or man has been complicit in that wicked act, however unknowing, they should beg God's forgiveness (and He DOES forgive) and seek out confession. They must come to hate what they once approved of, and determine never to approve it again. There IS life and hope after admitting the truth.

francobritannique
10-06-2015, 12:48
As I said, I have no trouble expressing my view on "the Galway case" to someone who can say, "OK, supposing your overarching view of reality is true...", because then they can see how we see the case of a woman, a baby, and lives in the balance. A person who cannot say that and for a minute make the imaginative effort to suppose that will only mock and sneer: for that would ge prejudice and bigotry ( the irreligious kind), and it is useless to speak to that.

My faith has solid rational foundations. There is a point, of course, that cannot be proven; a choice of faith IS required. But accepting it "turns the lights on", makes sense of what is otherwise an ultimately senseless world and existence.
Mythology is not a synonynom of "falsehood". Rather, the ancient pagans sought the truth, and found and expressed it in part. Myths, while not themselves reality, can be mirrors of reality. But thinking about what I see to be true begins, not in "what churchmen tell me", but what I can see with my own eyes, the behavior of people on the street, and the selfish desires I can see in my own heart.

If I speak about sin, I speak of an objective, provable thing, most often seen in what we call "selfishness". So if we can admit that the concept of sin is not especially a "religious" concept, but an observable phenomenon, we can proceed further. "The Fall" is a rational explanation that explains aspects of human existence that make little or no sense in materialist explanations, to wit, of both our desire to do good and the fact that we more often choose selfishness (materialism explains the selfishness, but generally flubs the desire to do good, sacrifice the self, etc), of both the fact that we die and the fact that we fear death, of our desire for meaning that transcends our lives.

On the whole, I do not say "The Bible says" or "God says". I say, for example, that we find murder and rape abhorrent, and that people will go to nearly any length to achieve approval of their own sexual desires. That is what I mean by speaking in secular terms. I am trying to speak, to the maximum extent possible, on the same playing field as you, from as many common points of reference as possible. My arguments HAVE been secular. They ask whether a being is human, not whether God created us, though I noted as an aside that there is no basis for insisting on human equality if we were not all created equal; if we were not created equally, then we certainly evolved unequally, and in that case Nietzsche is right and the attitude of human equality a mere sentiment. I don't think that is true, but that is what logic dictates without relying on religious dogmas (that you hold irreligious dogmas is another point). So no, no disingenuity.

At any rate, this is another, if related discussion to the issue of abortion. That one is "game over", babies are human even in the womb, there is no point other than conception at which a human being can be objectively declared to be such, and so abortion is the killing of a human being in the womb. This is a form of murder by human tradition in general, let alone what all of Western society understood until very recently, when technology enabled people to (try to) separate the sex act from its primary function, resulting in our modern insanity and millions of abortions annually despite the slogans of "safe, rare, and legal".

Rus,

A few points:

1. You say that you won't tell me what you think of the Galway case (by now I can guess, so you might as well...) because I might "mock and sneer". That does not suggest you have great confidence in your position! And why do you care if I "mock and sneer" anyway? (Not that I intend to...)

2. I totally disagree with your assertions about faith. It is called "faith" precisely because it is NOT rational! Otherwise it is called "science".

3. To require someone to agree with you before being prepared to debate with them is, to say the least, strange.

4. To say the "Fall" is a rational explanation for anything is, frankly, absurd. Let me get this right: a talking snake who persuades a couple of people to eat a fruit they've been told not to eat by some other entity, provides a more rational explanation for human existence than anything else? You cannot be serious! Please tell me you are not!

5. Mythology is not a synonym for falsehood, obviously, but it does refer to ancient or traditional explanations for the origins of a community. Typically, myths are based on a prehistoric understanding of nature that has, in most respects, been shown to be factually incorrect.

6. To say that there is no basis for equality other than that "we were created equal" is silly. What about common human decency? That does not require a creation myth! Humanism, for example, provides a coherent moral basis for existence with no need for appeals to the supernatural.

7. You employ transparent sophistry in eliding "human" and "human being". Nobody is arguing that an embryo is not human. I, and others, argue that it is not yet a human being. It is not sentient. It does not have functioning organs. A fingernail is human, but is not a human being. An eyeball is human, but is not a human being. A skin cell is human, but is not a human being. One could argue that anything containing human DNA is human but... so what?

Going back to point 1, I find it very odd that you decide that the actual life of a woman (who we can all agree was a human being), presumably with a family and loved ones, is less important than the foetus she was carrying.

It is even odder that you support the death penalty, which undoubtedly does involve the deliberate and premeditated killing of living human beings.

Franco

penka
10-06-2015, 16:43
Rus,

A few points:

1. You say that you won't tell me what you think of the Galway case (by now I can guess, so you might as well...) because I might "mock and sneer". That does not suggest you have great confidence in your position! And why do you care if I "mock and sneer" anyway? (Not that I intend to...)

2. I totally disagree with your assertions about faith. It is called "faith" precisely because it is NOT rational! Otherwise it is called "science".

3. To require someone to agree with you before being prepared to debate with them is, to say the least, strange.

4. To say the "Fall" is a rational explanation for anything is, frankly, absurd. Let me get this right: a talking snake who persuades a couple of people to eat a fruit they've been told not to eat by some other entity, provides a more rational explanation for human existence than anything else? You cannot be serious! Please tell me you are not!

5. Mythology is not a synonym for falsehood, obviously, but it does refer to ancient or traditional explanations for the origins of a community. Typically, myths are based on a prehistoric understanding of nature that has, in most respects, been shown to be factually incorrect.

6. To say that there is no basis for equality other than that "we were created equal" is silly. What about common human decency? That does not require a creation myth! Humanism, for example, provides a coherent moral basis for existence with no need for appeals to the supernatural.

7. You employ transparent sophistry in eliding "human" and "human being". Nobody is arguing that an embryo is not human. I, and others, argue that it is not yet a human being. It is not sentient. It does not have functioning organs. A fingernail is human, but is not a human being. An eyeball is human, but is not a human being. A skin cell is human, but is not a human being. One could argue that anything containing human DNA is human but... so what?

Going back to point 1, I find it very odd that you decide that the actual life of a woman (who we can all agree was a human being), presumably with a family and loved ones, is less important than the foetus she was carrying.

It is even odder that you support the death penalty, which undoubtedly does involve the deliberate and premeditated killing of living human beings.

Franco

A good and a logical one, Franco! Can't claim I personally 100% on all points, but still one can but appreciate the straightforwardness.

Do you really believe, Rus is capable of a straightforward and coherent response?... He keeps on repeating himself and getting lost in his own truthful claims most of the time.

francobritannique
10-06-2015, 16:49
A good and a logical one, Franco! Can't claim I personally 100% on all points, but still one can but appreciate the straightforwardness.

Do you really believe, Rus is capable of a straightforward and coherent response?... He keeps on repeating himself and getting lost in his own truthful claims most of the time.

Thank you, Penka...

FB

penka
10-06-2015, 17:37
Ah, Penka, assertions, assertions...

I think the truth to be completely the reverse; your own words apply to you.

You can use any medical term you like; the question is, of course, what assumptions are behind your use of the word. I have no problem with you speaking of zygotes, embryos and fetuses as long as you recognize that we are still talking about a human being. It is when that basic philosophical truth is (eagerly) forgotten that we must turn to language that more clearly asserts the fetus's humanity, that the human is alive, and must be killed to make him or her stop living, and if we let them live long enough to acquire a voice, they affirm unanimously that they want to live, and condemn your defense of a "right" to kill them a-borning. (There can be no "right" to a wrong; if it is wrong, it can't be a right.)

You can talk about my views being "religious"; I cheerfully admit that they are in the popular sense, but am not using religion to debate you. You are right that there is no debate when one side completely ignores what the other side is saying. I don't dismiss your words without public thought on them, I try to address them all.

We agree that peacefulness, forgiveness and kindness are virtues. But you are trying to say that there is nothing to forgive, and you don't like that I am saying that there IS. There can be no genuine peace without truth, which is the thing you deny, making peace impossible. And I do not speak for Fenrir, nor he for me. I do not praise the atomic bombings of 1945; I understand the whys, and think many things wrong with them; that civilian, rather than military targets were effectively chosen, and a number of other objections. That he also comes from a position of (non-Orthodox) faith, to the best of my knowledge, does not mean that we share all views, and I might as well ask what the difference between you and Natlee is if it comes to that.

You keep using this word "hypocrisy". To quote Inego Montoya, "I do not think it means what you think it means", or more accurately, that you misapply the general understanding. It is central Christian teaching that we all ought to be holy, and are not in fact holy. In that sense, EVERYBODY is a hypocrite. But the word becoms meaningless for identifying any specific case of hypocrisy. As a narrower meaning, the particularly heinous thing that really deserves to be condemned above all, is applying teaching to others that one will not apply to oneself. Amd of that charge I am innocent. I say we all ought to strive to be holy and refrain from sin; and I really try to do that, however badly. If I said that YOU should refrain from sin (bent, broken desires and passions, turned away from their proper object, thus the Latin word "perversion") and silently considered that I don't need to follow my own advice, then you would have something. But that's not the case.

You can continue to recast my position as "condemning the immorality of others who disagree with me". But I say that I say the issue is simpler. I have no idea whether you are guilty of anything, and I don't want to know. I have no interest whatsoever in personally condemning you. I myself do not want to be condemned. I'll leave the judging of that to God. But I do say evil is evil, and abortion is murder, and if you "disagree", then you are at best deceived, and at worst deceiving, yourself above all. How many photos of ultrasounds do we need? How many of children and adults expressing thanks that their mothers chose NOT to kill them? How many videos of ultrasound abortions and the baby's futile struggling not to be killed as unimaginable pain enters his life?

When the evidence is staring you in the face, as in the picture above, showing visibly what you can approve only as long as you can't see it, then the only good response is shame and tears. And, referring at last to the religious view I think to be the objective truth which governs us all, whether you know and admit it or not, if any woman or man has been complicit in that wicked act, however unknowing, they should beg God's forgiveness (and He DOES forgive) and seek out confession. They must come to hate what they once approved of, and determine never to approve it again. There IS life and hope after admitting the truth.

What you call for an "assertion" is a short version of your lengthy wording.
You either admit, all killing is immoral or you quit writing kleine manuskript on the abstract and surely, non-religious "truth". But you cannot, as the moment you'd do so, you'd have to admit the lies you are living.

Terminology exist for a reason. Human zygote does not equal a human. You mix the two, intentionally and , most probably, out of the basic ignorance. One can teach a parrot some english words and phrases. That won't make a parrot fluent in English or a linguist.

A rape victim's futile struggle never bothered you, since "we all will die".

The main "why" was the successful advance of the Soviet Army. Nam was a massive failure. Learn to live with that. The rest is "I did not have sex with this woman".

The main truth of each human is the ability to look in the mirror and see the reflection there, not to teach the others, what is right and what is wrong. but the person, who laments the lack of "thank you" for a posted joke, cannot do that, i gather.

penka
10-06-2015, 17:41
Thank you, Penka...

FB

Asch... Nothing to thank me for, really. I appreciate reason. Logics. Freedom. Sincerety. One can feel sympathy and respect towards a different point-of-view. I cannot feel any sympathy towards a narrow-minded righteousness, though.

rusmeister
10-06-2015, 18:46
What you call for an "assertion" is a short version of your lengthy wording.
You either admit, all killing is immoral or you quit writing kleine manuskript on the abstract and surely, non-religious "truth". But you cannot, as the moment you'd do so, you'd have to admit the lies you are living.

Terminology exist for a reason. Human zygote does not equal a human. You mix the two, intentionally and , most probably, out of the basic ignorance. One can teach a parrot some english words and phrases. That won't make a parrot fluent in English or a linguist.

A rape victim's futile struggle never bothered you, since "we all will die".

The main "why" was the successful advance of the Soviet Army. Nam was a massive failure. Learn to live with that. The rest is "I did not have sex with this woman".

The main truth of each human is the ability to look in the mirror and see the reflection there, not to teach the others, what is right and what is wrong. but the person, who laments the lack of "thank you" for a posted joke, cannot do that, i gather.

This tactic is basically you saying, "Because I am wrong about abortion, I will try to shift the emphasis to other ssues, such as capital punishment as a distraction tactic.

I know as well as anyone why terminology exists, possibly better, as language is my bread and butter. While I don't admit dictionaries as absolute authority, they certainly support me here:
From Merriam-Webster:
Full Definition of ZYGOTE

: a cell formed by the union of two gametes; broadly : the developing individual produced from such a cell
— zy·got·ic \zī-ˈgä-tik\ adjective

The word itself was coined only 130 years ago, as words go, it is a baby:
http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=zygote&allowed_in_frame=0
zygote (n.) Look up zygote at Dictionary.com
1880, coined 1878 by German cytologist Eduard Strasburger (1844-1912), the widespread attribution to William Bateson being apparently erroneous; from Greek zygotos "yoked," from zygon "yoke" (see jugular).

So you can accuse me of "ignorance", but Webster is on my side here; as I said, you make assertions, as I do; the difference is that mine are actually supported.

Why you think I am indifferent to the suffering of rape victims is not hard to guess; you NEED to imagine that I am so that you can hold on to some form of denial.

I'm not going to go twenty rounds of assertion, though. If you actually have anything thoughtful to say about Rebecca Kiessling or Gianna Jessen, or Steve Robinson's podcast, I'm open to considering it. Otherwise, I wish you as gentle an awakening to the truth as possible. You could try looking at the picture I posted above and think on it a while. We all want to live. Even people who realize they might have died or been killed as babies want to live.

francobritannique
10-06-2015, 19:56
This tactic is basically you saying, "Because I am wrong about abortion, I will try to shift the emphasis to other ssues, such as capital punishment as a distraction tactic.

I know as well as anyone why terminology exists, possibly better, as language is my bread and butter. While I don't admit dictionaries as absolute authority, they certainly support me here:
From Merriam-Webster:
Full Definition of ZYGOTE

: a cell formed by the union of two gametes; broadly : the developing individual produced from such a cell
— zy·got·ic \zī-ˈgä-tik\ adjective

The word itself was coined only 130 years ago, as words go, it is a baby:
http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=zygote&allowed_in_frame=0
zygote (n.) Look up zygote at Dictionary.com
1880, coined 1878 by German cytologist Eduard Strasburger (1844-1912), the widespread attribution to William Bateson being apparently erroneous; from Greek zygotos "yoked," from zygon "yoke" (see jugular).

So you can accuse me of "ignorance", but Webster is on my side here; as I said, you make assertions, as I do; the difference is that mine are actually supported.

Why you think I am indifferent to the suffering of rape victims is not hard to guess; you NEED to imagine that I am so that you can hold on to some form of denial.

I'm not going to go twenty rounds of assertion, though. If you actually have anything thoughtful to say about Rebecca Kiessling or Gianna Jessen, or Steve Robinson's podcast, I'm open to considering it. Otherwise, I wish you as gentle an awakening to the truth as possible. You could try looking at the picture I posted above and think on it a while. We all want to live. Even people who realize they might have died or been killed as babies want to live.

OK, some more points.

1. Contrasting your views on capital punishment and abortion is not a "distraction" but goes to the heart of the matter. You at times claim that all life is sacred (even life that has not yet begun), yet somehow the lives of people (rightly or wrongly) convicted in a court in a backward jurisdiction are not? That is not a distraction, Rus. Not at all.

2. You do seem hung up on terminology. According to Wikipedia (usually a more reliable source of information on scientific topics than a generalist dictionary):


A zygote (from Greek ζυγωτός zygōtos "joined" or "yoked", from ζυγοῦν zygoun "to join" or "to yoke"),[1] is a eukaryotic cell formed by a fertilization event between two gametes. The zygote's genome is a combination of the DNA in each gamete, and contains all of the genetic information necessary to form a new individual. In multicellular organisms, the zygote is the earliest developmental stage. In single-celled organisms, the zygote can divide asexually by mitosis to produce identical offspring.

What exactly is your point?

3. You say:


We all want to live. Even people who realize they might have died or been killed as babies want to live.

Even, one would think, the poor woman who died as a result of the Galway hospital refusing her a life-saving abortion. But, somehow, she is different.

Franco

rusmeister
10-06-2015, 21:00
OK, some more points.

1. Contrasting your views on capital punishment and abortion is not a "distraction" but goes to the heart of the matter. You at times claim that all life is sacred (even life that has not yet begun), yet somehow the lives of people (rightly or wrongly) convicted in a court in a backward jurisdiction are not? That is not a distraction, Rus. Not at all.

2. You do seem hung up on terminology. According to Wikipedia (usually a more reliable source of information on scientific topics than a generalist dictionary):


A zygote (from Greek ζυγωτός zygōtos "joined" or "yoked", from ζυγοῦν zygoun "to join" or "to yoke"),[1] is a eukaryotic cell formed by a fertilization event between two gametes. The zygote's genome is a combination of the DNA in each gamete, and contains all of the genetic information necessary to form a new individual. In multicellular organisms, the zygote is the earliest developmental stage. In single-celled organisms, the zygote can divide asexually by mitosis to produce identical offspring.

What exactly is your point?

3. You say:


We all want to live. Even people who realize they might have died or been killed as babies want to live.

Even, one would think, the poor woman who died as a result of the Galway hospital refusing her a life-saving abortion. But, somehow, she is different.

Franco

No, it does NOT go to the heart of the matter.
The point is not whether I can defend my views, but that you cannot defend your OWN views. I could be right or wrong about capital punishment (with full acknowledgement of miscarriages of justice, etc) - though you do not yet know my actual position - but you haven't even begun to explore that one. Have you read/listened to Steve Robinson yet? Until then, that issue is a dead duck. FWIW, I was completely anti-death penalty until I listened to Robinson. It took all seven or so podcasts to convince me. In any event, my position on the death penalty does nothing to justify abortion. You have utterly failed there to prove that you are NOT killing a human being. If there is even any reasonable doubt, then you ought to be on the side of not killing what even MIGHT be human life. Heck, the abortion defender goes nuts over cruelty to animals or living cells on Mars, but denies the cruelty to human children. The Indian woman in Ireland is something we can discuss, AFTER we have established that abortion in general means killing human life. I'm not going to go with a change of subject until that is clear. As long as you deny that, there is literally nothing else to talk about.

Wikipedia is more reliable??? A resource that can be changed from day to day, and hour to hour, and even minute to minute? Somebody write that one down!

Sure, it can be useful, if you take an extra big grain of salt and keep an eye on partisanship and ever-changing pages on controversial subjects.

You can go on on the zygote stage of human life, repeat, the zygote stage of human life, but you cannot establish a point at which the being becomes human that is not arbitrary, unless it be at conception: the point at which the natural process begins which, over 20 years, results in an adult human being.. That is a fatal weakness of your untenable position, which, last I checked, held that birth is that point, which means denying the baby depicted in the photo above human status.

francobritannique
10-06-2015, 21:17
No, it does NOT go to the heart of the matter.
The point is not whether I can defend my views, but that you cannot defend your OWN views. I could be right or wrong about capital punishment (with full acknowledgement of miscarriages of justice, etc) - though you do not yet know my actual position - but you haven't even begun to explore that one. Have you read/listened to Steve Robinson yet? Until then, that issue is a dead duck. FWIW, I was completely anti-death penalty until I listened to Robinson. It took all seven or so podcasts to convince me. In any event, my position on the death penalty does nothing to justify abortion. You have utterly failed there to prove that you are NOT killing a human being. If there is even any reasonable doubt, then you ought to be on the side of not killing what even MIGHT be human life. Heck, the abortion defender goes nuts over cruelty to animals or living cells on Mars, but denies the cruelty to human children. The Indian woman in Ireland is something we can discuss, AFTER we have established that abortion in general means killing human life. I'm not going to go with a change of subject until that is clear. As long as you deny that, there is literally nothing else to talk about.

Wikipedia is more reliable??? A resource that can be changed from day to day, and hour to hour, and even minute to minute? Somebody write that one down!

Sure, it can be useful, if you take an extra big grain of salt and keep an eye on partisanship and ever-changing pages on controversial subjects.

You can go on on the zygote stage of human life, repeat, the zygote stage of human life, but you cannot establish a point at which the being becomes human that is not arbitrary, unless it be at conception: the point at which the natural process begins which, over 20 years, results in an adult human being.. That is a fatal weakness of your untenable position, which, last I checked, held that birth is that point, which means denying the baby depicted in the photo above human status.

I did say that Wikipedia was usually more reliable on scientific topics than a generalist dictionary. Typically, according to medics I have spoken to, it is pretty good on medical topics. Do you have an issue with its definition of zygote?

Rus, in case you haven't got it yet, a debate can often consist of several parallel threads of argument - your attempt to block all discussion until your opponents agree with you betrays the weakness of your position. Please address all the points in parallel - I'm sure you are capable of that!

FB

rusmeister
11-06-2015, 06:53
There is no conflict between the definitions; your Wikipedia definition has a lot of technical details, but the dictionary's is more comprehensive, and thus, comprehending; it includes the understanding of the individual developing from the cell.

One thing I've figured out: your view, as Spock said of Khan in the original 1982 flick "The Wrath of Khan", "indicates two-dimensional thinking".

The thing is, we exist in time as well as space. A view that can see us in the dimension of time can see the person as a being connected, from the womb to old age and death, to see that at all stages, the person is a person.

There's a great poem by Tsvetaeva called "Старуха":

Слово странное -- старуха!
Смысл неясен, звук угрюм,
Как для розового уха
Темной раковины шум.

В нем -- непонятое всеми,
Кто мгновения экран.
В этом слове дышит время
В раковине -- океан.

And the thing is, you're not seeing the continuity of the person over time. You have, and offer absolutely no basis, on how or why a person is NOT human in the womb, nor do you identify the point at which they become human and on what basis you decide that. You can't see that the person is always a person, from the moment life begins, until it ends (and even then does not end, in my view, but that's based on "religious" understanding).

No, I will NOT address the other points, and it's not because of weakness, it's because anything else is a waste of time. If you dogmatically, against all evidence, including that in front of your eyes, of the humanity of a baby in the womb, then I can already predict your scorn and denial on all other points. I could spend hours explicating to someone who is going to deny or ignore everything instead of hours on vacation relaxing and doing productive things. The weakness is yours, for refusing to identify the exact point at which a person becomes human and on what basis. What you call "parallel points" I call "changing the subject", a distraction tactic.

rusmeister
11-06-2015, 07:18
The ultimate test, in this case, is to face up to what is actually being done, to SHOW and SEE abortion, rather than merely talk about it. That is fatal to your position. If you are right, then there is nothing horrific about "clumps of cells" or "non-human" embryos, and so, nothing for you to complain about or report. If you are wrong, however, and it IS horrific, then it is proved that abortion is a great evil.

The honest thinker, like the honest scientist, seeks to examine the evidence. Only the dishonest person would seek to have the evidence hidden.

There are hundreds of such examples; their purpose is not to titllate, or entertain, but to show what abortion actually is with no textual comment or manipulation. One such series of examples:
http://www.abortionno.org/abortion-photos/

francobritannique
11-06-2015, 09:16
And the thing is, you're not seeing the continuity of the person over time. You have, and offer absolutely no basis, on how or why a person is NOT human in the womb, nor do you identify the point at which they become human and on what basis you decide that. You can't see that the person is always a person, from the moment life begins, until it ends (and even then does not end, in my view, but that's based on "religious" understanding).

No, I will NOT address the other points, and it's not because of weakness, it's because anything else is a waste of time. If you dogmatically, against all evidence, including that in front of your eyes, of the humanity of a baby in the womb, then I can already predict your scorn and denial on all other points. I could spend hours explicating to someone who is going to deny or ignore everything instead of hours on vacation relaxing and doing productive things. The weakness is yours, for refusing to identify the exact point at which a person becomes human and on what basis. What you call "parallel points" I call "changing the subject", a distraction tactic.

Rus,

You clearly have not read (or maybe you are choosing to ignore) my response number 150 (point 7 specifically) in which I refer to the sophistry of your use of the word "human".

When does night become day, Rus? (Maybe that one is too subtle for you?)

FB

francobritannique
11-06-2015, 09:20
Rus,

One other point (that is clearly too awkward for you to address) relating to the unfortunate woman in Galway.

She died when the hospital refused her an abortion once she was actually having a miscarriage. Her child would never have been born, and yet she was allowed to die through deliberate acts on the part of the hospital staff, apparently driven by "pro-life" ideology.

And yet you STILL say that the hospital was right to let the mother die?

What sort of moral code drives you, exactly, Rus? It doesn't seem to make much sense.

FB

rusmeister
11-06-2015, 19:11
Rus,

A few points:

1. You say that you won't tell me what you think of the Galway case (by now I can guess, so you might as well...) because I might "mock and sneer". That does not suggest you have great confidence in your position! And why do you care if I "mock and sneer" anyway? (Not that I intend to...)

2. I totally disagree with your assertions about faith. It is called "faith" precisely because it is NOT rational! Otherwise it is called "science".

3. To require someone to agree with you before being prepared to debate with them is, to say the least, strange.

4. To say the "Fall" is a rational explanation for anything is, frankly, absurd. Let me get this right: a talking snake who persuades a couple of people to eat a fruit they've been told not to eat by some other entity, provides a more rational explanation for human existence than anything else? You cannot be serious! Please tell me you are not!

5. Mythology is not a synonym for falsehood, obviously, but it does refer to ancient or traditional explanations for the origins of a community. Typically, myths are based on a prehistoric understanding of nature that has, in most respects, been shown to be factually incorrect.

6. To say that there is no basis for equality other than that "we were created equal" is silly. What about common human decency? That does not require a creation myth! Humanism, for example, provides a coherent moral basis for existence with no need for appeals to the supernatural.

7. You employ transparent sophistry in eliding "human" and "human being". Nobody is arguing that an embryo is not human. I, and others, argue that it is not yet a human being. It is not sentient. It does not have functioning organs. A fingernail is human, but is not a human being. An eyeball is human, but is not a human being. A skin cell is human, but is not a human being. One could argue that anything containing human DNA is human but... so what?

Going back to point 1, I find it very odd that you decide that the actual life of a woman (who we can all agree was a human being), presumably with a family and loved ones, is less important than the foetus she was carrying.

It is even odder that you support the death penalty, which undoubtedly does involve the deliberate and premeditated killing of living human beings.

Franco

Hi, FB,
Sorry I missed this post in the shuffle.

1. No, I am quite confident enough in my position. I just don't want to move on to other issues, even related ones, until the general question of what abortion is is agreed upon.
It is akin to trying to get agreement on whether our thoughts bear any relation to reality. If we argue about that, there is not much point proceeding to further topics. There is no point discussing any issue connected to abortion unless it is first recognized what it is.

2. No, you don't have a correct understanding of what faith is. It is not an opposite of "rational". It is a choice, a decision to believe a thing. It may be based on rational or irrational understandings. As such, it can be compatible with reason or unreason. I am only interested in the kind that is compatible with reason. You generally imagine and attack the kind that is unreasonable. You mistake my position for the unreasonable ones you have known.

3. No, it is essential to establish common first principles in any intelligent debate. You cannot disagree except beginning on some common ground for which you agree. As I said about whether our thoughts really relate to reality or not.

4. You do not yet have a clear understanding of what the Fall is. Again, you take the most primitive version of it that you have found, and proceed to assume that it is the only way to understand it.

5. You have a radically wrong, though commonly taught understanding of mythology. Mythology is art, not science. It is NOT an attempt of ancient man to conduct science, and trying to judge it by scientific criteria makes about as much sense as judging Rembrandt by the chemical composition of his works.

I have little hope that you will read and consider arguments against your dogma that myth is merely primitive and false understanding, but here is a great exposition on their nature from one of the greatest books of the twentieth century:

http://www.worldinvisible.com/library/chesterton/everlasting/part1c5a.htm


6. "Common human decency" is becoming increasingly uncommon. When Miley Cyrus or Jerry Springer get more attention than Shakespeare, when public expression of profanity, pornography, graphic violence and so on are proliferated to the point of saturation, talking about common human decency seems exaggerated. That decency has itself to be based on something. And this is the general weakness of materialism, Darwinism (a sacred cow, indeed!) and modern secularism; the human ideals of equality, decency, protecting the weak, are hardly explained by evolutionary theory or any rise from meaninglessness.

7. No, the sophistry is yours. I apply logic, even if it is also a tautology. I take the meaning of the adjective literally; you evidently don't until it is convenient for you. If a being is human, then it is a human being. Your judgement that being human requires sentience (a slippery concept!), eyeballs, etc is an arbitrary one with no rational basis; on the same principle I can declare that the ability to read and count, or live independently from parents, are also necessary criteria and kill anyone as "not human" based on my criteria. Your principle can be used against your values, even though you might object - you can't, the principle is yours.

One overwhelming difference between an eyeball, skin cell or fingernail and a human zygote is that the former do NOT, if left to grow inside their hosts, grow into functional and recognizable (even to you!) human beings. The latter do. Ergo, the latter are alive; they are, in the most literal sense, human life. So it is NOT an argument that "anything with human DNA is human", as the things you mentioned ARE human, but are not human life, unlike the zygote.

Whether there ARE any circumstances where a human being may or ought to be killed is literally another matter; first we must establish that we are, in fact, killing them.

francobritannique
11-06-2015, 20:39
Rus,

As per the subject, I'll respond more fully a little later, but I have to admit that am confused!

You say in your first point:

I just don't want to move on to other issues, even related ones, until the general question of what abortion is is agreed upon.

But you then proceed to move onto the following issues, that are nothing to do with abortion:

- The correctness or not of my understanding of what "faith" is
- My (mis)understanding of the "Fall"
- The radically wrong nature of my ideas on mythology
- Some stuff about Darwinism
- A discussion of sophistry

So... I find it disingenuous for you to avoid one topic that is highly relevant to the argument at hand, while happily "educating" me on what appear to be your own pet topics!

Can you explain why, say, the Fall (a rather obscure religious concept) is more relevant to the debate at hand than a recent, awful, case involving a hospital refusing abortion?

FB

penka
11-06-2015, 21:01
Hi, FB,
Sorry I missed this post in the shuffle.

1. No, I am quite confident enough in my position. I just don't want to move on to other issues, even related ones, until the general question of what abortion is is agreed upon.
It is akin to trying to get agreement on whether our thoughts bear any relation to reality. If we argue about that, there is not much point proceeding to further topics. There is no point discussing any issue connected to abortion unless it is first recognized what it is.

2. No, you don't have a correct understanding of what faith is. It is not an opposite of "rational". It is a choice, a decision to believe a thing. It may be based on rational or irrational understandings. As such, it can be compatible with reason or unreason. I am only interested in the kind that is compatible with reason. You generally imagine and attack the kind that is unreasonable. You mistake my position for the unreasonable ones you have known.

3. No, it is essential to establish common first principles in any intelligent debate. You cannot disagree except beginning on some common ground for which you agree. As I said about whether our thoughts really relate to reality or not.

4. You do not yet have a clear understanding of what the Fall is. Again, you take the most primitive version of it that you have found, and proceed to assume that it is the only way to understand it.

5. You have a radically wrong, though commonly taught understanding of mythology. Mythology is art, not science. It is NOT an attempt of ancient man to conduct science, and trying to judge it by scientific criteria makes about as much sense as judging Rembrandt by the chemical composition of his works.

I have little hope that you will read and consider arguments against your dogma that myth is merely primitive and false understanding, but here is a great exposition on their nature from one of the greatest books of the twentieth century:

http://www.worldinvisible.com/library/chesterton/everlasting/part1c5a.htm


6. "Common human decency" is becoming increasingly uncommon. When Miley Cyrus or Jerry Springer get more attention than Shakespeare, when public expression of profanity, pornography, graphic violence and so on are proliferated to the point of saturation, talking about common human decency seems exaggerated. That decency has itself to be based on something. And this is the general weakness of materialism, Darwinism (a sacred cow, indeed!) and modern secularism; the human ideals of equality, decency, protecting the weak, are hardly explained by evolutionary theory or any rise from meaninglessness.

7. No, the sophistry is yours. I apply logic, even if it is also a tautology. I take the meaning of the adjective literally; you evidently don't until it is convenient for you. If a being is human, then it is a human being. Your judgement that being human requires sentience (a slippery concept!), eyeballs, etc is an arbitrary one with no rational basis; on the same principle I can declare that the ability to read and count, or live independently from parents, are also necessary criteria and kill anyone as "not human" based on my criteria. Your principle can be used against your values, even though you might object - you can't, the principle is yours.

One overwhelming difference between an eyeball, skin cell or fingernail and a human zygote is that the former do NOT, if left to grow inside their hosts, grow into functional and recognizable (even to you!) human beings. The latter do. Ergo, the latter are alive; they are, in the most literal sense, human life. So it is NOT an argument that "anything with human DNA is human", as the things you mentioned ARE human, but are not human life, unlike the zygote.

Whether there ARE any circumstances where a human being may or ought to be killed is literally another matter; first we must establish that we are, in fact, killing them.

Ergo, the human zygote is a hypothetical theoretical human being, not yet a human being. Q.E.D.

PS I'm glad, you have familiarised yourself with a new useful word:)

Uncle Wally
11-06-2015, 22:21
Ergo, the human zygote is a hypothetical theoretical human being, not yet a human being. Q.E.D.

PS I'm glad, you have familiarised yourself with a new useful word:)


Yeah if I tattooed Ringo Star's face on the head of my d!ck, every morning it would grow into a recognizable human being. He really does have a mind of his own.

penka
11-06-2015, 22:35
Yeah if I tattooed Ringo Star's face on the head of my d!ck, every morning it would grow into a recognizable human being. He really does have a mind of his own.

:D

rusmeister
11-06-2015, 23:35
Ergo, the human zygote is a hypothetical theoretical human being, not yet a human being. Q.E.D.

PS I'm glad, you have familiarised yourself with a new useful word:)

No, it is a human being at its earliest stage. Not hypothetical. If it were hypothetical then you wouldn't need to literally abort it. Want the pictures of your literally aborted "hypothetical" human beings? Only when you see the fingers and toes, dismembered arms and legs and heads, you might (rightly) want to throw up. Of course you don't. Seeing would force believing, or frantic denial.

francobritannique
12-06-2015, 11:29
No, it is a human being at its earliest stage. Not hypothetical. If it were hypothetical then you wouldn't need to literally abort it. Want the pictures of your literally aborted "hypothetical" human beings? Only when you see the fingers and toes, dismembered arms and legs and heads, you might (rightly) want to throw up. Of course you don't. Seeing would force believing, or frantic denial.

Rus,

I hate to be awkward, but you yourself wrote:

One overwhelming difference between an eyeball, skin cell or fingernail and a human zygote is that the former do NOT, if left to grow inside their hosts, grow into functional and recognizable (even to you!) human beings. The latter do.

By your own argumentation, if something needs to be "left to grow" in order to become a human being, then at the start of that process it is only a potential human being, which I think was Penka's point.

So, now we are finally agreed on the blindingly obvious point that a fertilised egg is not a human being, but only the initial developmental stage of said species, can you tell me what you think of the Galway case?

FB

rusmeister
12-06-2015, 18:11
Rus,

I hate to be awkward, but you yourself wrote:

One overwhelming difference between an eyeball, skin cell or fingernail and a human zygote is that the former do NOT, if left to grow inside their hosts, grow into functional and recognizable (even to you!) human beings. The latter do.

By your own argumentation, if something needs to be "left to grow" in order to become a human being, then at the start of that process it is only a potential human being, which I think was Penka's point.

So, now we are finally agreed on the blindingly obvious point that a fertilised egg is not a human being, but only the initial developmental stage of said species, can you tell me what you think of the Galway case?

FB

No, FB, and I am pretty much done with you. You misconstrue my words, willfully. That you finally recognize that the being is human does not mean that it was not human until you recognized it. Your recognition has nothing to do with their objective status. The being is human at ALL stages once the process of growth has begun, once there is a being to grow in the first place.

And with that, I am done with you.

penka
12-06-2015, 18:26
:7525::7525::7525:

rusmeister
12-06-2015, 21:03
:7525::7525::7525:

:7525::7525::7525:

We can make beautiful music together! :D

francobritannique
12-06-2015, 21:15
No, FB, and I am pretty much done with you. You misconstrue my words, willfully. That you finally recognize that the being is human does not mean that it was not human until you recognized it. Your recognition has nothing to do with their objective status. The being is human at ALL stages once the process of growth has begun, once there is a being to grow in the first place.

And with that, I am done with you.

RUS 0, FB 1

rusmeister
13-06-2015, 08:06
RUS 0, FB 1

A legend in your own mind...

francobritannique
13-06-2015, 11:40
A legend in your own mind...

Actually not.

It's simple: you withdrew from the debate, so you lost.

FB

vossy7
13-06-2015, 11:52
Actually not.

It's simple: you withdrew from the debate, so you lost.

FB

Phew thank god for that , it should have been aborted a long time ago :hooray::hooray::hooray:

rusmeister
14-06-2015, 06:59
An observation on the general problem of what we call "debate":

http://markjgolden.com/2011/07/18/have-we-lost-the-ability-to-argue/

francobritannique
14-06-2015, 12:19
An observation on the general problem of what we call "debate":

http://markjgolden.com/2011/07/18/have-we-lost-the-ability-to-argue/

Interesting.

Doesn't quite square with the "I won't discuss anything with you unless you agree with me first" approach, though.

FB

penka
14-06-2015, 12:58
Technically speaking, what Rus is trying to do is squeezing an admission under constraint.
Illegal action from the point of view of law and a deprivation of another individual of a right to a personal opinion in the current context. Widely implemented within any totalitarian structure.

francobritannique
14-06-2015, 12:59
Technically speaking, what Rus is trying to do is squeezing an admission under constraint.
Illegal action from the point of view of law and a deprivation of another individual of a right to a personal opinion in the current context. Widely implemented within any totalitarian structure.

I hadn't thought of it like that, Penka, but you're spot on!

FB

penka
14-06-2015, 13:07
I hadn't thought of it like that, Penka, but you're spot on!

FB

It's always interesting to peel down long utterances to their basic structures. And then, of course, there raises the question of true motifs behind the persistent implementation of those (here: the forced opinion and consequently, an agreement). The latter invariably reflect personal interests, ranging from personal justification to personal gratification.

francobritannique
14-06-2015, 13:30
It's always interesting to peel down long utterances to their basic structures. And then, of course, there raises the question of true motifs behind the persistent implementation of those (here: the forced opinion and consequently, an agreement). The latter invariably reflect personal interests, ranging from personal justification to personal gratification.

Indeed it is...

FB

rusmeister
14-06-2015, 15:33
Interesting.

Doesn't quite square with the "I won't discuss anything with you unless you agree with me first" approach, though.

FB

No, it's "I won't put up with distraction from the simple fact that you have to put either scissors in the womb to dismember the baby, slice through his neck, cut ff his arms and legs, etc and remove the body parts (which suddenly becomes "not my body!"), or flood the womb with poison of some sort, saline solution to burn the baby inside and out, or some such method, in order to kill the inconvenience to our own lives."

That is something that is definitely the killing of a living being, however you try to avoid admitting it. I can respect you as a human being, while positively loathing the meaning of what you are saying. If you don't agree - and you can't show that it's NOT killing a living being -then there's jothing more to say. No debate. We can fight - with swords or pistols - but we can't talk. One of our ideas must prevail by force -the truth, or a lie. The difference is that, sooner or later, the truth will out, and anything you try to build on a lie will collapse sooner or later, just like the Soviet Union. Only on the truth can you build something lasting.

rusmeister
14-06-2015, 15:34
It's always interesting to peel down long utterances to their basic structures. And then, of course, there raises the question of true motifs behind the persistent implementation of those (here: the forced opinion and consequently, an agreement). The latter invariably reflect personal interests, ranging from personal justification to personal gratification.

Indeed it is. And I suspect that to be the case...

francobritannique
14-06-2015, 15:45
No, it's "I won't put up with distraction from the simple fact that you have to put either scissors in the womb to dismember the baby, slice through his neck, cut ff his arms and legs, etc and remove the body parts (which suddenly becomes "not my body!"), or flood the womb with poison of some sort, saline solution to burn the baby inside and out, or some such method, in order to kill the inconvenience to our own lives."

That is something that is definitely the killing of a living being, however you try to avoid admitting it. I can respect you as a human being, while positively loathing the meaning of what you are saying. If you don't agree - and you can't show that it's NOT killing a living being -then there's jothing more to say. No debate. We can fight - with swords or pistols - but we can't talk. One of our ideas must prevail by force -the truth, or a lie. The difference is that, sooner or later, the truth will out, and anything you try to build on a lie will collapse sooner or later, just like the Soviet Union. Only on the truth can you build something lasting.

Ah, OK.

From your article:


If argument is in service of the truth, not personal victory, that demands being open to the possibility that the opposition might be right. Which requires also being open to the possibility that one’s own sincere and intensely held beliefs might be wrong. Or at least incomplete.

But, I take it, that only applies to the other side, right?

FB

rusmeister
14-06-2015, 17:17
Ah, OK.

From your article:



But, I take it, that only applies to the other side, right?

FB

No. I am quite open to examination of my position. I am not afraid of challenge. But you cannot prove that the being inside the mother is not human, nor that the operation to rid the mother of the being does not kill it. Yes, you have tried, but your efforts boil down to trying to use alternative names, like zygote or fetus to make it sound like the being is non-human, or that it is like a fingernail and therefore the act is not killing. Those arguments have been considered - and rejected. My mind was open to considering them, HAS considered them, and has come to the conclusion that your claims are false and has closed to those arguments. The purpose of opening a mind, as of opening a mouth, is to close it on something solid. My conclusion remains: the being is in fact human, and you are in fact killing it.

Your slippery criteria of what you will admit to be human are like those of the Nazi scientists deciding who exactly would be considered human and worthy of life.

I don't care about "personal victory"; I expect to be dead some time over the next decade or two, and don't think myself terribly important. The truth is what matters on this vital subject. Abortion is one of the means used to separate sex from its primary function: procreation, and the main interest of the defenders of abortion is in making sexual intercourse possible without having to deal with the natural result: children.

francobritannique
14-06-2015, 17:18
No. I am quite open to examination of my position. I am not afraid of challenge. But you cannot prove that the being inside the mother is not human, nor that the operation to rid the mother of the being does not kill it. Yes, you have tried, but your efforts boil down to trying to use alternative names, like zygote or fetus to make it sound like the being is non-human, or that it is like a fingernail and therefore the act is not killing. Those arguments have been considered - and rejected. My mind was open to considering them, HAS considered them, and has come to the conclusion that your claims are false and has closed to those arguments. The purpose of opening a mind, as of opening a mouth, is to close it on something solid. My conclusion remains: the being is in fact human, and you are in fact killing it.

Your slippery criteria of what you will admit to be human are like those of the Nazi scientists deciding who exactly would be considered human and worthy of life.

I don't care about "personal victory"; I expect to be dead some time over the next decade or two, and don't think myself terribly important. The truth is what matters on this vital subject. Abortion is one of the means used to separate sex from its primary function: procreation, and the main interest of the defenders of abortion is in making sexual intercourse possible without having to deal with the natural result: children.

Your actions suggest otherwise, Rus.

penka
14-06-2015, 18:08
Aha! So, one of the conclusions is: A middle aged couple with two children is committing a crime, each time they are having sex with a condom or any other contraceptive, since they are undermining the very basic meaning of a sex act.

(I won't degrade Rus' learned utterances by such mundane things as the cost of education or that women nowadays are expected and more often, forced to work full-time to support the family, as a man's salary doesn't cover it all.)

And the sinners do not repent!!! APPALLING.

francobritannique
14-06-2015, 18:11
Aha! So, one of the conclusions is: A middle aged couple with two children is committing a crime, each time they are having sex with a condom or any other contraceptive, since they are undermining the very basic meaning of a sex act.

(I won't degrade Rus' learned utterances by such mundane things as the cost of education or that women nowadays are expected and more often, forced to work full-time to support the family, as a man's salary doesn't cover it all.)

And the sinners do not repent!!! APPALLING.

Not a crime, Penka... A sin. Worse. Much worse.

FB

penka
14-06-2015, 18:18
Not a crime, Penka... A sin. Worse. Much worse.

FB

OFUL. APOLIN'. Depraved Western humanity needs a spiritual Leader that knows the Truth. Torquemada type on the telly 24/7. The most sinful sinners should be burned at stake. And it will be peace and quiet and love:evilgrin:

francobritannique
14-06-2015, 18:21
OFUL. APOLIN'. Depraved Western humanity needs a spiritual Leader that knows the Truth. Torquemada type on the telly 24/7. The most sinful sinners should be burned at stake. And it will be peace and quiet and love:evilgrin:

I think what Rus is saying, is: women exist solely to bear men's children and must continue doing so as long as they are biologically capable thereof.

Either that, or they must forego all forms of sexual activity once they have given birth to as many children as they are logistically or economically capable of supporting.

Please correct me, Rus, if I have misunderstood something.

FB

penka
14-06-2015, 18:25
I think what Rus is saying, is: women exist solely to bear men's children and must continue doing so as long as they are biologically capable thereof.

Either that, or they must forego all forms of sexual activity once they have given birth to as many children as they are logistically or economically capable of supporting.

Please correct me, Rus, if I have misunderstood something.

FB

Yep. Straight to the nunnery!

francobritannique
14-06-2015, 18:28
Yep. Straight to the nunnery!


Get thee to a nunn'ry, why woulds't thou be a breeder of
sinners

Hamlet

(Not the cigars)

penka
14-06-2015, 18:35
Hamlet

(Not the cigars)

I figured:)

Am indifferent to cigars. And am not that fond of Sigmund:D

francobritannique
14-06-2015, 18:38
I figured:)

Am indifferent to cigars. And am not that fond of Sigmund:D

I find a good cigar to be very fragrant (from a distance)... Especially the Havana ones...

penka
14-06-2015, 18:41
I find a good cigar to be very fragrant (from a distance)... Especially the Havana ones...

They might be:)

rusmeister
14-06-2015, 22:56
Aha! So, one of the conclusions is: A middle aged couple with two children is committing a crime, each time they are having sex with a condom or any other contraceptive, since they are undermining the very basic meaning of a sex act.

(I won't degrade Rus' learned utterances by such mundane things as the cost of education or that women nowadays are expected and more often, forced to work full-time to support the family, as a man's salary doesn't cover it all.)

And the sinners do not repent!!! APPALLING.


OFUL. APOLIN'. Depraved Western humanity needs a spiritual Leader that knows the Truth. Torquemada type on the telly 24/7. The most sinful sinners should be burned at stake. And it will be peace and quiet and love:evilgrin:


I think what Rus is saying, is: women exist solely to bear men's children and must continue doing so as long as they are biologically capable thereof.

Either that, or they must forego all forms of sexual activity once they have given birth to as many children as they are logistically or economically capable of supporting.

Please correct me, Rus, if I have misunderstood something.

FB
You've misunderstood everything, and you sure make it look like you're doing it on purpose.
You guys can parody my position all you want; you don't understand it and imo, don't WANT to understand it as it is, but to keep it in a ridiculous form that you can... ridicule.

You take words of mine like "prime" purpose, for example, and read it as "only" purpose, and so on. It's called misunderstanding. Willfully? Maybe. I kind of think so.

francobritannique
15-06-2015, 12:09
You've misunderstood everything, and you sure make it look like you're doing it on purpose.
You guys can parody my position all you want; you don't understand it and imo, don't WANT to understand it as it is, but to keep it in a ridiculous form that you can... ridicule.

You take words of mine like "prime" purpose, for example, and read it as "only" purpose, and so on. It's called misunderstanding. Willfully? Maybe. I kind of think so.

Rus,

I cannot speak for Penka, obviously, but I certainly have not set out deliberately to misunderstand your position - your pronouncements on sex, and its purpose (or the "negation" thereof) have been rather more categorical than you now seem to claim. For example:

No talk here of "prime" purpose:

It's no good knowing how to make venereal disease less likely if you have completely misunderstood the nature and purposes of sex.



Your statements below suggest to me (and clearly others) that you believe contraception to be wrong:

FB, it is contentious ONLY because people desire the sex act to be separated from its natural consequence of childbirth.


Abortion is one of the means used to separate sex from its primary function: procreation, and the main interest of the defenders of abortion is in making sexual intercourse possible without having to deal with the natural result: children.

So, Rus, a couple of questions:

1. Are you now saying that you have no problem with contraception?

If you don't, what exactly do you mean by "means used to separate sex from its primary function"?

If you do have a problem with contraception, then Penka's and my points do not represent any kind of misunderstanding, wilful or not.

2. If procreation is just the "prime" purpose of sex, what are the others, in your view?

Please clarify, and I will happily acknowledge I got you wrong!

FB

rusmeister
15-06-2015, 17:16
Rus,

I cannot speak for Penka, obviously, but I certainly have not set out deliberately to misunderstand your position - your pronouncements on sex, and its purpose (or the "negation" thereof) have been rather more categorical than you now seem to claim. For example:

No talk here of "prime" purpose:



Your statements below suggest to me (and clearly others) that you believe contraception to be wrong:




So, Rus, a couple of questions:

1. Are you now saying that you have no problem with contraception?

If you don't, what exactly do you mean by "means used to separate sex from its primary function"?

If you do have a problem with contraception, then Penka's and my points do not represent any kind of misunderstanding, wilful or not.

2. If procreation is just the "prime" purpose of sex, what are the others, in your view?

Please clarify, and I will happily acknowledge I got you wrong!

FB

No, I still think misunderstanding could be at least to some extent willful - leaping from a reasonable inference that I think contraception to be ultimately wrong to the unreasonable conclusions I myself object to:


I think what Rus is saying, is: women exist solely to bear men's children and must continue doing so as long as they are biologically capable thereof.

Either that, or they must forego all forms of sexual activity once they have given birth to as many children as they are logistically or economically capable of supporting.

It's when you stop assuming these fundamentalist ideas that are a parody even for fundamentalists that I could discuss something. To imply that I say "women exist solely to..." is insulting both to me and to women (though I'll assume you don't intend insult. But I think another thread appropriate; I see this one as specific to abortion and what it is.

I have a mother, sister, wife ,and two daughters. I assure you, I absolutely don't want anyone "dominating" them, or using them as "baby factories". You seem completely unaware of the concept of self-control, natural family planning, and the various philosophical implications of contraception, since you don't say anything about them. Your view, as expressed, is that of an outsider, who has never dealt with insiders, certainly not intelligent ones. If you knew any better-informed Catholic, Anglo-Catholic or Orthodox folk, you would know something about those responses.

I realize that my own view may shock the average person brought up in the modern thought of the centrally-produced mass culture at first contact. It took me years to come to, myself.

But abortion is really, really black and white. There is no shade of grey between killing and not killing. Using euphemisms like "put an end to" or "terminate" only highlight the nature of the act to the thinking person. Photographs, complete with tiny severed limbs, recognizable fingers, etc, put a final end to all sophistry that they are not human. Beyond that, a person is deliberately lying to himself, or actively insane, two states that are not very far from each other.

francobritannique
15-06-2015, 17:21
No, I still think misunderstanding could be at least to some extent willful - leaping from a reasonable inference that I think contraception to be ultimately wrong to the unreasonable conclusions I myself object to:



It's when you stop assuming these fundamentalist ideas that are a parody even for fundamentalists that I could discuss something. To imply that I say "women exist solely to..." is insulting both to me and to women (though I'll assume you don't intend insult. But I think another thread appropriate; I see this one as specific to abortion and what it is.

I have a mother, sister, wife ,and two daughters. I assure you, I absolutely don't want anyone "dominating" them, or using them as "baby factories". You seem completely unaware of the concept of self-control, natural family planning, and the various philosophical implications of contraception, since you don't say anything about them. Your view, as expressed, is that of an outsider, who has never dealt with insiders, certainly not intelligent ones. If you knew any better-informed Catholic, Anglo-Catholic or Orthodox folk, you would know something about those responses.

I realize that my own view may shock the average person brought up in the modern thought of the centrally-produced mass culture at first contact. It took me years to come to, myself.

But abortion is really, really black and white. There is no shade of grey between killing and not killing. Using euphemisms like "put an end to" or "terminate" only highlight the nature of the act to the thinking person. Photographs, complete with tiny severed limbs, recognizable fingers, etc, put a final end to all sophistry that they are not human. Beyond that, a person is deliberately lying to himself, or actively insane, two states that are not very far from each other.

Can you not simply answer my clarifying questions, Rus? By doing so you would enable me to better characterise your position. I can assure you that I do not seek to misunderstand you. If you can let me know, simply, your answers, that would be very helpful!

My questions are simple, straightforward and, I believe, uncontroversial and unconfrontational.

FB

rusmeister
16-06-2015, 00:30
If you start from the philosophical assumptions widely held today, you are going to be shocked by almost anything I say.

You have to start by asking whether we share ANY assumptions in common whatsoever and figuring out what they are.

We can start from the beginning and ask what the purpose of sexual relations are. Not "what did they become 25 years or whatever ago?" but "What have they always been?"

If you jump to ideas like "overpopulation", you're jumping the gun. First you have to get straight what the biological purpose of sexual relations is.

If, like many moderns, you think of sex as having the primary purpose of giving you pleasure, and that sexual desires MUST be fulfilled, then I'll say you don't know anything about sex. But I'll give you some advance credit for knowing better than that, as long as you don't abuse it. :)

See? No religious reference! (Despite Penka's claims to the contrary...)

francobritannique
16-06-2015, 11:58
If you start from the philosophical assumptions widely held today, you are going to be shocked by almost anything I say.

You have to start by asking whether we share ANY assumptions in common whatsoever and figuring out what they are.

We can start from the beginning and ask what the purpose of sexual relations are. Not "what did they become 25 years or whatever ago?" but "What have they always been?"

If you jump to ideas like "overpopulation", you're jumping the gun. First you have to get straight what the biological purpose of sexual relations is.

If, like many moderns, you think of sex as having the primary purpose of giving you pleasure, and that sexual desires MUST be fulfilled, then I'll say you don't know anything about sex. But I'll give you some advance credit for knowing better than that, as long as you don't abuse it. :)

See? No religious reference! (Despite Penka's claims to the contrary...)

Rus,

That is interesting, and potentially grounds for debate. I haven't been called a "modern" before but will take it as a compliment :)

Before we get stuck into that, let's settle a couple of things:

1. What are your views on contraception (you have hinted that you are opposed, but not said it straight out)?

2. What in your view are the purposes of sex beyond the "primary" one of procreation?

FB

rusmeister
16-06-2015, 13:15
Rus,

That is interesting, and potentially grounds for debate. I haven't been called a "modern" before but will take it as a compliment :)

Before we get stuck into that, let's settle a couple of things:

1. What are your views on contraception (you have hinted that you are opposed, but not said it straight out)?

2. What in your view are the purposes of sex beyond the "primary" one of procreation?

FB
Contraception is a modern evil, Malthus was wrong and Dickens was right, and unless we understand that everything that works against the primary purpose of sex is abuse (bad use) of sex, we don't understand anything. Abortion is far and away the most heinous, not only murder, but the murder of children.

Yes, having children is often inconvenient. But unless someone accepted the burden of raising us, we would not be here to pontificate. All of the difficulties of children, the tragedies associated with wild abuse of sex (such as rape), are secondary. Procreation is primary. Any philosophy that tries to make the secondary things of sex primary, specifically, of treating sexual satisfaction as primary and children as secondary, is like practicing bulimic regurgitation in order to taste food without digesting it. And the main issue for most people is that they want the sexual relations without the consequences, and are prepared to believe any lie that supports that.

And people don't want the responsibility that comes from living in faithful monogamy (a thing we have unlearned how to do), holding sexual relations as a sacred thing to be practiced only in marriage, and always open to the possibility of children. It is true that modern wage slavery serving industrial capitalists makes having children seem more like an economic liability than an asset, but that is a wrong way of viewing things, and saying "So much the worse for children". I say "So much the worse for industrial capitalism." We hold the wrong ideals in life, seeing the the better car, the better house, free time in evenings to go to discos or cinemas as the more desirable things, and children as the impediment to that. In doing that, we have been looking at things upside-down. We see the iPhone as more desirable than the child, and it is our eyes that have come to see crooked.

So partly, we have appeared in a world we did not choose, and have been brought up to think in certain - wrong - ways, and to that extent the situation is not our fault. But it IS our fault when we are shown the truth and still choose the lies.

rusmeister
16-06-2015, 13:25
Oh, and "modern" is a dreadful insult in my book. It means being a creature and prisoner of your own time, the fashions (моды) of thought into which you were born. It means to be "современный", to go with the times, and therefore to go where all times go: into the past. To be modern is to be outdated.

I use English textbooks that try to be modern. Only the modern people and technologies they refer to keep dying and becoming outdated, respectively, and so are soon outdated. It is the things that don't change that makes the books still usable., and the things that change that make them look pitiful.
Try watching Disney's version of "The Jungle Book" today. They tried to make it modern in the 1960's by making Baloo a hippie in speech and attitude. Today he just looks and sounds absurd, no longer modern, only outdated.

The only way to escape all that is by finding eternal truth that never goes out of date.

If you seriously called me "modern", I would have to challenge you to a duel. :)

francobritannique
16-06-2015, 13:57
Contraception is a modern evil, Malthus was wrong and Dickens was right, and unless we understand that everything that works against the primary purpose of sex is abuse (bad use) of sex, we don't understand anything. Abortion is far and away the most heinous, not only murder, but the murder of children.

Yes, having children is often inconvenient. But unless someone accepted the burden of raising us, we would not be here to pontificate. All of the difficulties of children, the tragedies associated with wild abuse of sex (such as rape), are secondary. Procreation is primary. Any philosophy that tries to make the secondary things of sex primary, specifically, of treating sexual satisfaction as primary and children as secondary, is like practicing bulimic regurgitation in order to taste food without digesting it. And the main issue for most people is that they want the sexual relations without the consequences, and are prepared to believe any lie that supports that.

And people don't want the responsibility that comes from living in faithful monogamy (a thing we have unlearned how to do), holding sexual relations as a sacred thing to be practiced only in marriage, and always open to the possibility of children. It is true that modern wage slavery serving industrial capitalists makes having children seem more like an economic liability than an asset, but that is a wrong way of viewing things, and saying "So much the worse for children". I say "So much the worse for industrial capitalism." We hold the wrong ideals in life, seeing the the better car, the better house, free time in evenings to go to discos or cinemas as the more desirable things, and children as the impediment to that. In doing that, we have been looking at things upside-down. We see the iPhone as more desirable than the child, and it is our eyes that have come to see crooked.

So partly, we have appeared in a world we did not choose, and have been brought up to think in certain - wrong - ways, and to that extent the situation is not our fault. But it IS our fault when we are shown the truth and still choose the lies.

Thank you, Rus, for a clear exposition of your position.

I will ponder the most appropriate response, but I can't help but remark that you seem to have developed what seems to me to be an exaggeratedly negative view of what motivates people.

Do you by any chance read the Daily Mail? :D

FB

Nobbynumbnuts
16-06-2015, 14:42
Oh, and "modern" is a dreadful insult in my book. It means being a creature and prisoner of your own time, the fashions (моды) of thought into which you were born. It means to be "современный", to go with the times, and therefore to go where all times go: into the past. To be modern is to be outdated.

I use English textbooks that try to be modern. Only the modern people and technologies they refer to keep dying and becoming outdated, respectively, and so are soon outdated. It is the things that don't change that makes the books still usable., and the things that change that make them look pitiful.
Try watching Disney's version of "The Jungle Book" today. They tried to make it modern in the 1960's by making Baloo a hippie in speech and attitude. Today he just looks and sounds absurd, no longer modern, only outdated.

The only way to escape all that is by finding eternal truth that never goes out of date.

If you seriously called me "modern", I would have to challenge you to a duel. :)

There is a contradiction in your argument.

Sex is of course primarily for procreation but we have a high sex drive and sex is very pleasurable. Further more sex is an integral part of a happy, healthy relationship. These conditions have been created by your God.

There was good reason for these conditions from the dawn of time. Homosapians at one point numbered just a handful (it's believed) and were trying to survive and establish themselves in a very hostile world. So lots of sex equals lots of procreation and ultimate survival. As we can see today.

However, conditions have now changed. Over population, lack of resources etc etc. Your God's plan now comes up short. The original plan would have been fine had we remained as part of the animal kingdom. Nature has a very efficient way of counter balancing excess. As with other creatures on earth, as one species becomes too dominant, out of the natural balance they are struck down with disease, famine etc. and the natural balance returns. This is not the case with us, due to the conditions your God created in the depths of time and which we are now unable to regulate and control without 'unnatural' means (contraception)

Unless you believe we should refrain from contraception and let nature take it's natural course (eventual annihilation/catastrophe) we have little choice but to use modern techniques to prevent over population.

natlee
16-06-2015, 15:21
Unless you believe we should refrain from contraception and let nature take it's natural course (eventual annihilation/catastrophe) we have little choice but to use modern techniques to prevent over population. He (Rus) does beileve that ;)


I am speaking about doing what is right, Natlee. Doing what is right can be hard. Very hard. It may mean, for instance, refusing to shoot innocent civilians, knowing that you yourself will be shot for refusing to obey the order. I do not say that doing right is easy. I only say that it is necessary. My helping or not helping is irrelevant to that. It may be that I am able to help someone. I do engage in local charity, including families in difficult circumstances. But your doing right should not depend on whether I, or anyone, will help you. Hopefully that answers your questions.

That leaves only one issue. When do you suppose the being inside the mother becomes human? On what basis do you suppose that? If we test that basis on other cases, will that basis hold up? The point is that ANY point you choose would be arbitrary, based on criteria you choose yourself, which anyone can dispute. There is only one clear and unarguable point, before which no baby results, and after which a baby will certainly result, unless the being is killed.

If the being is human at seven weeks, then killing it is just as murderous as at twenty, or thirty-six. That it is smaller, and its cleft palate not formed yet, or whatever, does not change that fact. So any argument you construct would have to be of your own invention; its only purpose: to justify abortion. And other clever devils will immediately use that to justify other things you never thought possible.

This is the response to UW's post, as well. If demonstrating that babies are in fact human is "stooping", then
I will cheerfully "stoop" as often as necessary. Your position, UW, is not logical. You cannot define a point at which a baby becomes human that is not arbitrary, of your own invention, unless you concede that that point is conception.You're missing my point - I have already agreed with you in that abortion is (essentially) murder. However, past a certain point it becomes what I tend to call brutal murder. You see no difference, but I do. If for whatever reason a rape victim only found out she was pregnant in her second trimester, then I do believe that she should "do the right thing".

That aside, I have always believed in doing what's right for the children you have already got (ones who probably weren't implanted inside you with great force and pain) first and foremost.

Again, I agree in that abortion is murder. And yes, abortion remains abortion (=murder) in cases of rape, too. I just don't believe in you or I having a fecking right to tell a rape victim to live with (such) consequences of someone else's actions, and ones which had (already) left her traumatized for life.

Also, I believe that as responsible human beings we MUST use contraception, unless we truly are willing and ABLE to raise and support (yes, financially, too) a family of 20+. No, we should not refrain from sex (with our partners anyway) unless making a baby, not unless we want to live the lives of angry bastards and b*tches :D, for most of us are made to crave it (sex), abstinence frustrates us greatly, AND it is healthy for ya! ;)

penka
16-06-2015, 16:07
Contraception is a modern evil, Malthus was wrong and Dickens was right, and unless we understand that everything that works against the primary purpose of sex is abuse (bad use) of sex, we don't understand anything. Abortion is far and away the most heinous, not only murder, but the murder of children.

Yes, having children is often inconvenient. But unless someone accepted the burden of raising us, we would not be here to pontificate. All of the difficulties of children, the tragedies associated with wild abuse of sex (such as rape), are secondary. Procreation is primary. Any philosophy that tries to make the secondary things of sex primary, specifically, of treating sexual satisfaction as primary and children as secondary, is like practicing bulimic regurgitation in order to taste food without digesting it. And the main issue for most people is that they want the sexual relations without the consequences, and are prepared to believe any lie that supports that.

And people don't want the responsibility that comes from living in faithful monogamy (a thing we have unlearned how to do), holding sexual relations as a sacred thing to be practiced only in marriage, and always open to the possibility of children. It is true that modern wage slavery serving industrial capitalists makes having children seem more like an economic liability than an asset, but that is a wrong way of viewing things, and saying "So much the worse for children". I say "So much the worse for industrial capitalism." We hold the wrong ideals in life, seeing the the better car, the better house, free time in evenings to go to discos or cinemas as the more desirable things, and children as the impediment to that. In doing that, we have been looking at things upside-down. We see the iPhone as more desirable than the child, and it is our eyes that have come to see crooked.

So partly, we have appeared in a world we did not choose, and have been brought up to think in certain - wrong - ways, and to that extent the situation is not our fault. But it IS our fault when we are shown the truth and still choose the lies.

Are you claiming, contraception was invented in the modern times?;) Or had been used only by the spoilt upper classes?:)

Desire and acquisition of more money, more jewels and a larger house is a dirty bastard of capitalism?

Natural birth regulation?:) "Our unchaste times"?;)

Right. If anybody ever taught you basic anatomy, history or culture - sue them! And sue them BIG.

By the way, I'd warmly recommend you to look through Fr Kuraev's article "Orthodox GULAG". Interesting read. I believe, it's only in Russian, but I'm sure, you'll manage:)

penka
16-06-2015, 16:13
Oh, and "modern" is a dreadful insult in my book. It means being a creature and prisoner of your own time, the fashions (моды) of thought into which you were born. It means to be "современный", to go with the times, and therefore to go where all times go: into the past. To be modern is to be outdated.

I use English textbooks that try to be modern. Only the modern people and technologies they refer to keep dying and becoming outdated, respectively, and so are soon outdated. It is the things that don't change that makes the books still usable., and the things that change that make them look pitiful.
Try watching Disney's version of "The Jungle Book" today. They tried to make it modern in the 1960's by making Baloo a hippie in speech and attitude. Today he just looks and sounds absurd, no longer modern, only outdated.

The only way to escape all that is by finding eternal truth that never goes out of date.

If you seriously called me "modern", I would have to challenge you to a duel. :)

No, I'd call you an average American:) No offence:)

francobritannique
16-06-2015, 16:33
Contraception is a modern evil, Malthus was wrong and Dickens was right, and unless we understand that everything that works against the primary purpose of sex is abuse (bad use) of sex, we don't understand anything. Abortion is far and away the most heinous, not only murder, but the murder of children.

Yes, having children is often inconvenient. But unless someone accepted the burden of raising us, we would not be here to pontificate. All of the difficulties of children, the tragedies associated with wild abuse of sex (such as rape), are secondary. Procreation is primary. Any philosophy that tries to make the secondary things of sex primary, specifically, of treating sexual satisfaction as primary and children as secondary, is like practicing bulimic regurgitation in order to taste food without digesting it. And the main issue for most people is that they want the sexual relations without the consequences, and are prepared to believe any lie that supports that.

And people don't want the responsibility that comes from living in faithful monogamy (a thing we have unlearned how to do), holding sexual relations as a sacred thing to be practiced only in marriage, and always open to the possibility of children. It is true that modern wage slavery serving industrial capitalists makes having children seem more like an economic liability than an asset, but that is a wrong way of viewing things, and saying "So much the worse for children". I say "So much the worse for industrial capitalism." We hold the wrong ideals in life, seeing the the better car, the better house, free time in evenings to go to discos or cinemas as the more desirable things, and children as the impediment to that. In doing that, we have been looking at things upside-down. We see the iPhone as more desirable than the child, and it is our eyes that have come to see crooked.

So partly, we have appeared in a world we did not choose, and have been brought up to think in certain - wrong - ways, and to that extent the situation is not our fault. But it IS our fault when we are shown the truth and still choose the lies.

Rus,

Are you seriously saying that use of contraception by a couple in a loving, monogamous relationship is evil? Have I read you right?

If I have (and I accept that I may not have done, so utterly improbable does it seem), then I don't really see how you can have a problem with my assertion that you view women as having the choice of either abstaining from sex, or having as many babies as they are biologically capable of.

Could you clarify, please? I think that will inform this discussion.

FB

Uncle Wally
16-06-2015, 16:34
No, I'd call you an average American:) No offence:)



Wow �� and they haven't banned you yet? Even I couldn't think of anything nastier to call someone.

francobritannique
16-06-2015, 16:50
Oh, and "modern" is a dreadful insult in my book. It means being a creature and prisoner of your own time, the fashions (моды) of thought into which you were born. It means to be "современный", to go with the times, and therefore to go where all times go: into the past. To be modern is to be outdated.

I use English textbooks that try to be modern. Only the modern people and technologies they refer to keep dying and becoming outdated, respectively, and so are soon outdated. It is the things that don't change that makes the books still usable., and the things that change that make them look pitiful.
Try watching Disney's version of "The Jungle Book" today. They tried to make it modern in the 1960's by making Baloo a hippie in speech and attitude. Today he just looks and sounds absurd, no longer modern, only outdated.

The only way to escape all that is by finding eternal truth that never goes out of date.

If you seriously called me "modern", I would have to challenge you to a duel. :)

Interesting!

My view of "modern" has nothing to do with superficial fashions (which of course, with the exception of the truly great, will become dated).

Rather, it hinges on a "modern" (read, post-Enlightenment) view of the constant enrichment of human knowledge and capability. It is about being prepared to reject received wisdom in the light of new evidence and knowledge. It is about being prepared to accept that one is wrong in the light of such new knowledge.

So - it is very much about finding "eternal truth".

It sounds as if you are saying that all such eternal truths have already been discovered, and "modernity" is all about brushing them aside.

Nothing, in my mind, could be further from the truth (pun intended).

FB

penka
16-06-2015, 17:08
Wow �� and they haven't banned you yet? Even I couldn't think of anything nastier to call someone.

:D:D:D You are one sweet guy!:)

penka
16-06-2015, 17:10
Rus,

Are you seriously saying that use of contraception by a couple in a loving, monogamous relationship is evil? Have I read you right?

If I have (and I accept that I may not have done, so utterly improbable does it seem), then I don't really see how you can have a problem with my assertion that you view women as having the choice of either abstaining from sex, or having as many babies as they are biologically capable of.

Could you clarify, please? I think that will inform this discussion.

FB

Are you a sinner, Franco? Having illicit sex within a loving relationship??????

francobritannique
16-06-2015, 17:12
Are you a sinner, Franco? Having illicit sex within a loving relationship??????

I wish I was :)

penka
16-06-2015, 19:24
I wish I was :)

Oh, splendid! Rus would approve:D

francobritannique
16-06-2015, 20:47
Oh, splendid! Rus would approve:D

Approve of what I wish for, or the fact that I am wishing?

:)

penka
16-06-2015, 20:54
Approve of what I wish for, or the fact that I am wishing?

:)

None but the fact:)

natlee
16-06-2015, 20:58
Will you two get a room already? This thread's far too long as it is! ;)

TolkoRaz
16-06-2015, 21:34
Its about time to terminate this thread, sorry, I mean abort the thread!

penka
16-06-2015, 21:49
Hmm... talk of the anterior motifs.

natlee
16-06-2015, 21:50
Hmm... talk of the anterior motifs. :confused:

penka
16-06-2015, 21:51
Clearly, there must be some if you insist on a thread to be closed;)

But then, you are an OP, right?...:)

rusmeister
16-06-2015, 22:15
Again, you leap to conclusions that do not express what I think. Misunderstanding is a minefield.
If I think a thing evil, it does not logically follow that the people who unwittingly use it are evil. And yet that is precisely what you have assumed of me.

I'll respond later. In the meantime, on abortion:

vossy7
16-06-2015, 22:20
So , I am in Warsaw at the moment, missing my wife terribly....just had a business meal and drank some evil lemon based Polish vodka , every restaurant here is trying to make their own ,yuck....but the smoked Polish sausage was yam , yam yam:10518:

penka
16-06-2015, 22:22
Again, you leap to conclusions that do not express what I think. Misunderstanding is a minefield.
If I think a thing evil, it does not logically follow that the people who unwittingly use it are evil. And yet that is precisely what you have assumed of me.

I'll respond later. In the meantime, on abortion:

Rus, I am familiar with the religious and logical reasoning:)

Now, this embryologist of yours, he got any scientific facts to prove his point or is he an average American?

Again, I do warmly recommend you to read Fr Kuraev's article.

natlee
16-06-2015, 22:30
Clearly, there must be some if you insist on a thread to be closed;) That was TR!

penka
16-06-2015, 23:59
That was TR!

"natlee natlee is offline
Jedi Knight


Will you two get a room already? This thread's far too long as it is!"


You must be rather tired, poor thing:)

natlee
17-06-2015, 00:24
"natlee natlee is offline
Jedi Knight


Will you two get a room already? This thread's far too long as it is!"


You must be rather tired, poor thing:) I am exhausted!

What I meant to say was you two are spamming it with your flirting! :p

Hans.KK
17-06-2015, 01:06
I'll respond later. In the meantime, on abortion:Oh shit.... http://humanlife.org is most likely a religious thing and they can't distinguish between "the beginning of new life" (which is some kind of sciences) and "the beginning of new human life" (which is a religious definition), and we should not forget the legal definition that varies from country to country, it is not that easy Rus.
And the legal one is even more tricky, in my native country one law define the beginning of life as conception, but when it comes to abortion then ”life” starts after the 12 week, and then in the Penal Code life starts when you are born.
So it is all about definition, and that differs a lot, there is not that clear answer to that question unless you are religious, but sadly not all people are religious, some people have there own brain and do not need some one else to tell them what is right and what is wrong.

vossy7
17-06-2015, 04:08
News just in......the University of Arizona has just become the center of the Universe according to Luke...scratch that.....Rus!

Capman
17-06-2015, 05:45
some people have there own brain and do not need some one else to tell them what is right and what is wrong.

LoL ... just curious as to who these folks are? :9456:

rusmeister
17-06-2015, 08:14
"27 “He answered, ‘Then I beg you, father, send Lazarus to my family, 28 for I have five brothers. Let him warn them, so that they will not also come to this place of torment.’

29 “Abraham replied, ‘They have Moses and the Prophets; let them listen to them.’

30 “‘No, father Abraham,’ he said, ‘but if someone from the dead goes to them, they will repent.’

31 “He said to him, ‘If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will not be convinced even if someone rises from the dead.’”

"I will be convinced if you show me the evidence!"
No, you won't. If you WILL not believe, then no evidence could ever change that.

Who can seriously say that the being in this image is not human??

rusmeister
17-06-2015, 08:24
There is a contradiction in your argument.

Sex is of course primarily for procreation but we have a high sex drive and sex is very pleasurable. Further more sex is an integral part of a happy, healthy relationship. These conditions have been created by your God.

There was good reason for these conditions from the dawn of time. Homosapians at one point numbered just a handful (it's believed) and were trying to survive and establish themselves in a very hostile world. So lots of sex equals lots of procreation and ultimate survival. As we can see today.

However, conditions have now changed. Over population, lack of resources etc etc. Your God's plan now comes up short. The original plan would have been fine had we remained as part of the animal kingdom. Nature has a very efficient way of counter balancing excess. As with other creatures on earth, as one species becomes too dominant, out of the natural balance they are struck down with disease, famine etc. and the natural balance returns. This is not the case with us, due to the conditions your God created in the depths of time and which we are now unable to regulate and control without 'unnatural' means (contraception)

Unless you believe we should refrain from contraception and let nature take it's natural course (eventual annihilation/catastrophe) we have little choice but to use modern techniques to prevent over population.

Nobby, you say "Malthus was right". (Not sure if you know who he is, but, hey, no one needs education when we have Google and Wikipedia, right?)

I say Dickens was right. Malthus predicted unsustainability of population by the end of....the nineteenth century. We have enormous food industries that literally throw away massive amounts of food. You might look at Moscow and think there's no room; I look at Ivanovskaya oblast and see mega-acres of unoccupied and livable land.

But the real problem is that you can't conceive of any alternative to your own proposition. You have a dogmatic idea in your brain that because you see large cities, and know some numbers, that here are therefore "too many people". And worse, you exclude yourself from the "excess" population. If there are too many people, go kill yourself. That'll help reduce the population, right? You are being like the person who says "I've got mine; screw the rest!"

Do you know what literary character of Dickens expresses the ideas of Malthus?
Yep, none other than... Ebenezer Scrooge.

francobritannique
17-06-2015, 10:19
I am exhausted!

What I meant to say was you two are spamming it with your flirting! :p

Flirting???

Rus and I are engaged in a debate. Any rumours to the contrary are totally false.

:D

rusmeister
17-06-2015, 11:13
Rus, I am familiar with the religious and logical reasoning:)

Now, this embryologist of yours, he got any scientific facts to prove his point or is he an average American?

Again, I do warmly recommend you to read Fr Kuraev's article.

Hi, Penka,
I DO take your recommendation seriously; I recognize that there are, shall we say, people of less-than-desired intelligence in the Patriarchate. I also don't think everything the Patriarch does is desirable. But you'd have to understand that there is little point in my joining you in condemning the Patriarchate wholesale: my view is that the Church is right, even when its leaders are wrong. If Chaplin advocates socialism, as he appears to, I can only say that it is not a terribly intelligent position. So there is much that seems just in Kuraev's observations. Just as we must pray for our civil leaders, even and especially when they are not good civil leaders, so must we pray for the Church hierarchy, even when they are not good leaders. And above all, that the people go bad only proves the Church's teachings to be true. You CAN'T get me to ditch the Church just because you can show stupid and bad people in it. I KNOW that already.

Neither, though, could I take Kuraev's comments as meaning that we in the Church cannot come to a single conclusion, about which some are actually right, and others actually wrong. Not sure if you were aiming for that or not. But I do take your serious objections seriously. In fact, I like you when you raise the serious objections. I think the serious objections very much worth answering. :) It's when you simply attack a position of mine, assuming it is based on nothing at all, that I don't want to talk.

I absolutely reject both Stalinism and socialism, (as well as capitalism), and if it were up to me, Chaplin would be in a small monastery somewhere being required to read the Church fathers and Church men who saw or experienced socialism and Stalinism - Schmemann, Bloom, and Men' come to mind (and some Chesterton, to boot, for common sense). But it's not. So within the Church, to people who are in the Church, I will urge what always ought to be urged - to put not our trust in kings and princes, that Christ's Kingdom is not of is world, that we are to be in the world but not of the world, and that some of the modern ideas of our modern leaders are bad ideas, and some words, bad words, and some silences, bad silences... But to you, being outside of the Church, I can only say that there are some things I think you are right on - but you are wrong if you conclude that the Church is wrong because of such people. It teaches that people are messed up - and lo and behold, so they are! :)

Nobbynumbnuts
17-06-2015, 12:42
Nobby, you say "Malthus was right". (Not sure if you know who he is, but, hey, no one needs education when we have Google and Wikipedia, right?)

I say Dickens was right. Malthus predicted unsustainability of population by the end of....the nineteenth century. We have enormous food industries that literally throw away massive amounts of food. You might look at Moscow and think there's no room; I look at Ivanovskaya oblast and see mega-acres of unoccupied and livable land.

But the real problem is that you can't conceive of any alternative to your own proposition. You have a dogmatic idea in your brain that because you see large cities, and know some numbers, that here are therefore "too many people". And worse, you exclude yourself from the "excess" population. If there are too many people, go kill yourself. That'll help reduce the population, right? You are being like the person who says "I've got mine; screw the rest!"

Do you know what literary character of Dickens expresses the ideas of Malthus?
Yep, none other than... Ebenezer Scrooge.

Few insults there Rus but i'll 'turn the other cheek' lol.

You didn't spend a lot of time addressing the issues i raised except to point out that there is an excess of food in Moscow and that perhaps we should collect it and send it to Africa where people are starving.

I hate food waste and i agree with you that this is wrong but to supply food to areas of the world where it's needed is not sustainable. Populations there would grow further, without family planning and the problem grows larger. Your solution is treating the symptoms but not tackling the cause.

All this because your God is offended by the use of a condom or so you inform us. Or those like you who dress in strange robes and practice strange ceremonies. We haven't heard from him directly on the subject...

I

penka
17-06-2015, 15:40
Hi, Penka,
I DO take your recommendation seriously; I recognize that there are, shall we say, people of less-than-desired intelligence in the Patriarchate. I also don't think everything the Patriarch does is desirable. But you'd have to understand that there is little point in my joining you in condemning the Patriarchate wholesale: my view is that the Church is right, even when its leaders are wrong. If Chaplin advocates socialism, as he appears to, I can only say that it is not a terribly intelligent position. So there is much that seems just in Kuraev's observations. Just as we must pray for our civil leaders, even and especially when they are not good civil leaders, so must we pray for the Church hierarchy, even when they are not good leaders. And above all, that the people go bad only proves the Church's teachings to be true. You CAN'T get me to ditch the Church just because you can show stupid and bad people in it. I KNOW that already.

Neither, though, could I take Kuraev's comments as meaning that we in the Church cannot come to a single conclusion, about which some are actually right, and others actually wrong. Not sure if you were aiming for that or not. But I do take your serious objections seriously. In fact, I like you when you raise the serious objections. I think the serious objections very much worth answering. :) It's when you simply attack a position of mine, assuming it is based on nothing at all, that I don't want to talk.

I absolutely reject both Stalinism and socialism, (as well as capitalism), and if it were up to me, Chaplin would be in a small monastery somewhere being required to read the Church fathers and Church men who saw or experienced socialism and Stalinism - Schmemann, Bloom, and Men' come to mind (and some Chesterton, to boot, for common sense). But it's not. So within the Church, to people who are in the Church, I will urge what always ought to be urged - to put not our trust in kings and princes, that Christ's Kingdom is not of is world, that we are to be in the world but not of the world, and that some of the modern ideas of our modern leaders are bad ideas, and some words, bad words, and some silences, bad silences... But to you, being outside of the Church, I can only say that there are some things I think you are right on - but you are wrong if you conclude that the Church is wrong because of such people. It teaches that people are messed up - and lo and behold, so they are! :)

I believe, you have misunderstood me. As I've said, the article is interesting inasmuch it addresses acquisitiveness (suppose, it is a right word for стяжательство), perversion of suffering and morality within it, inversion of the idea and practice of "socialism", indeed not a very new structure in itself.
And Fr Kuraev is certainly a believer and a highly educated man.

rusmeister
17-06-2015, 17:45
Few insults there Rus but i'll 'turn the other cheek' lol.

You didn't spend a lot of time addressing the issues i raised except to point out that there is an excess of food in Moscow and that perhaps we should collect it and send it to Africa where people are starving.

I hate food waste and i agree with you that this is wrong but to supply food to areas of the world where it's needed is not sustainable. Populations there would grow further, without family planning and the problem grows larger. Your solution is treating the symptoms but not tackling the cause.

All this because your God is offended by the use of a condom or so you inform us. Or those like you who dress in strange robes and practice strange ceremonies. We haven't heard from him directly on the subject...

I

Yeah, you're right, I was a little too acidic there. Sorry! I really should use more third person pronouns. Not everything is necessarily applicable to everybody. My description describes the general rule, and the effect of advocating the prevention of other lives when we have our own.

But you're not entirely fair, either, when you say "God is offended by the use of a condom". Again, it is a radically different understanding of what sexual relations ought to be. If a man and a woman are supposed to be exclusively monogamous and faithful to each other, and the marital act one of complete trust and intimacy, then even condoms obviously violate both the trust and the intimacy. They offer "protection" - from the person you are supposed to abandon any need for protection from. Again, in the most positive light, they still have the definite purpose of engaging in the process while evading the natural result of that process - like the bulimic.

As long as you speak about "populations" and exclude yourself from the population to be controlled, though, you will never understand me - or Dickens. We must consider Nobby and Rus as among the children to be born - or denied life.

Oh, and eight-plus hours on, I'm still waiting for the first claim that the baby in the picture is not human...

rusmeister
17-06-2015, 17:48
I believe, you have misunderstood me. As I've said, the article is interesting inasmuch it addresses acquisitiveness (suppose, it is a right word for стяжательство), perversion of suffering and morality within it, inversion of the idea and practice of "socialism", indeed not a very new structure in itself.
And Fr Kuraev is certainly a believer and a highly educated man.

Thanks! Yes, I agree he is. I don't agree with him on everything, but I respect him.

Not sure if you had any other point, except to figure out whether we agree on anything, or whether I would support Chaplin's words. I don't. I'm Chestertonian.

penka
17-06-2015, 18:07
Thanks! Yes, I agree he is. I don't agree with him on everything, but I respect him.

Not sure if you had any other point, except to figure out whether we agree on anything, or whether I would support Chaplin's words. I don't. I'm Chestertonian.

Nono, no ulterior motif.

PS I suppose, the use of word "acquisitiveness" was correct, then.

rusmeister
17-06-2015, 22:25
Nono, no ulterior motif.

PS I suppose, the use of word "acquisitiveness" was correct, then.

Sounds good to me...

rusmeister
18-06-2015, 06:04
Are you claiming, contraception was invented in the modern times?;) Or had been used only by the spoilt upper classes?:)

Desire and acquisition of more money, more jewels and a larger house is a dirty bastard of capitalism?

Natural birth regulation?:) "Our unchaste times"?;)

Right. If anybody ever taught you basic anatomy, history or culture - sue them! And sue them BIG.

By the way, I'd warmly recommend you to look through Fr Kuraev's article "Orthodox GULAG". Interesting read. I believe, it's only in Russian, but I'm sure, you'll manage:)

On your asking whether I think "the present is unchaste while the past was chaste", etc - I don't think any of that.

It can be put very simply: sexual evil has always existed in human society, wrong has always been practiced. But it was always generally condemned, at least publicly. Our time distinguishes itself by the attainment of, not merely toleration, but public approval of sexual wrongdoing. Instead of turning away from the hypocrisy of the past to embrace chastity, we have chosen to be openly unchaste.

rusmeister
18-06-2015, 08:19
Rus,

Are you seriously saying that use of contraception by a couple in a loving, monogamous relationship is evil? Have I read you right?

If I have (and I accept that I may not have done, so utterly improbable does it seem), then I don't really see how you can have a problem with my assertion that you view women as having the choice of either abstaining from sex, or having as many babies as they are biologically capable of.

Could you clarify, please? I think that will inform this discussion.

FB

You're jumping the gun again.
Can a person do something wrong and not be aware that it is wrong?
Can you understand what is right or wrong, good or evil, without first considering the nature of the thing?

There are plenty of things I could add from my "religious" world view - which I see to be, not "religious", but the actual fact of the matter, the objective state of the universe, but I am constrained to try to put things only in terms you could understand and possibly agree with.

What do you think you are doing when you "have sex"? (A term coined in 1929 by an avowed enemy of traditional sexual morality, DH Lawrence) how did this act come about? Why? What purpose is the appetite meant to serve? (And even thinking about what meaning is, and who anything could mean anything to)
And what is the purpose of the condom, then? You may think the answer obvious; I think it needs to be spelled out and considered.

The purpose of "birth control" is to abandon self-control. It is "an expedient by which it is possible to filch the pleasure belonging to a natural process while unnaturally thwarting the process itself".

It means there shall be no birth and no control (of one's self in sexual matters).

Here is an article expounding on the udea:

http://www.gkc.org.uk/gkc/books/Social_Reform_B.C.html

Everything all of you say is aimed at accomplishing that one thing. To steal the pleasure from the process while stopping the process itself. It cannot be put plainer than that, and it is obvious.

The common excuses of economy (we "can't afford children") are general nonsense, not in that there is no financial strain, but in the assumption that one is excused from exercising self-control, and in many of the real cases of what can be afforded. Put more plainly, far more people practice birth control in order to be free for clubs and cinemas in the evening, and to afford iPhones, than actually risk dying of starvation because of children. Furthermore, they presuppose accepting the economic conditions as given and never ask whether it is the economic conditions that ought to be changed, rather than the sexual practices.

So why, then, is the loving monogamous couple (why should they be monogamous? Or even loving? Why not polygamous?) using "birth control"? Speaking of the overwhelming majority, at best, it is because they want all the modern conveniences of life, and they haven't thought about the issue. They just tacitly agree that they don't want children. They want the second car, to pay off the mortgage sooner, etc etc.

And what are the results of adults having few or no children? Well, on having only one, there is a Russian expression: "One child is half a child". There is good folk wisdom behind this (and a lot more that could be said). On (willfully) not having any, I can speak to the rise of the "kidult"; adults who, not being forced to grow up by virtue of having to take care of children, remain in a permanent state of childishness. Thus the modern adult video game industry, thus the waves of superhero films, comic book and gaming conventions where forty and fifty-year old men dress up like Aquaman or Darth Vader, not to entertain children, but themselves.

The old idea was that one man and one woman should become one flesh, to form a single family out of the two lone individuals. But condoms deliberately prevent that union of one flesh, they effectively turn the sex act into a simulation of the act. Other methods do other unnatural and even dangerous things.

The loving couple using birth control does not think about these things, does not intend any wrongdoing. They have been told by society ( that is, by us) that it is a fine and normal thing.

At any rate, your assumptions are NOT self-evident and are certainly debatable. I have the advantage because I already know your arguments.


Interesting!

My view of "modern" has nothing to do with superficial fashions (which of course, with the exception of the truly great, will become dated).

Rather, it hinges on a "modern" (read, post-Enlightenment) view of the constant enrichment of human knowledge and capability. It is about being prepared to reject received wisdom in the light of new evidence and knowledge. It is about being prepared to accept that one is wrong in the light of such new knowledge.

So - it is very much about finding "eternal truth".

It sounds as if you are saying that all such eternal truths have already been discovered, and "modernity" is all about brushing them aside.

Nothing, in my mind, could be further from the truth (pun intended).

FB

The trouble with the "enrichment of human knowledge" is that there is only so much by which any of us can be enriched. Now it is true that regarding the details of the universe, scientific and technological knowledge, there can be a collective learning process, though I see that to be fatally flawed by the human tendency toward selfishness, what I call sin. But we can learn things that are not actually the truth of the matter, making our "riches" dust and ashes.

Your understanding of the word "modern" is wholly disconnected from its etymology. I could take most of your words and apply them to "tradition". In both cases we are applying our own subjective understandings to the words. But for words to have meaning between us, that we might speak to, and not past each other, we must speak with reference to the words' roots and history. And "modern" (современный in Russian) is as I said.

Now, if you really reject received wisdom in the light of new evidence and knowledge, I wonder how you came to call it "wisdom" in the first place, and how you can know that your current position of skepticism is not similarly doomed to become such "former received wisdom"; in other words, how you can defend ANY knowledge as sure and not subject to be reversed tomorrow. If you cannot arrive at a final position of surety, which you can be sure is immune to this "light of new evidence and knowledge", you can never find any eternal truth.

All such sure knowledge is an act of faith. Even in denying my ideas, you must have faith in your own. And you cannot "prove" that faith to others. You can only appeal to what is common in us to try to convince.

I do not say or suggest that "ALL" truths have been found. But I do think the most important one HAS been found. There is much we can still learn. But - speaking not in debate, but from my conclusions - I am convinced that God walked the Earth incarnate as a man in relatively recent historical times, that there is an extraordinary abundance of evidence of this I have seen and dealt with the very best of the arguments and skepticism against it, and the latter have lost. I am convinced, not only by intellectual argument, but by broad personal experience of sin, in myself as well as others, and thought about death and meaning in life, that this thing called the Gospel, the Good News, is actually true, and to all who realize that they have cancer, the discovery of a cure for cancer really IS good news.

francobritannique
18-06-2015, 19:26
Rus,

That is one long and complex reply!

To avoid what Penka would term a "kleine Manuskript" I will respond to each section in different replies...

FB

francobritannique
18-06-2015, 19:44
In response to my question:

Are you seriously saying that use of contraception by a couple in a loving, monogamous relationship is evil? Have I read you right?


You responded:


You're jumping the gun again.
Can a person do something wrong and not be aware that it is wrong?
Can you understand what is right or wrong, good or evil, without first considering the nature of the thing?

There are plenty of things I could add from my "religious" world view - which I see to be, not "religious", but the actual fact of the matter, the objective state of the universe, but I am constrained to try to put things only in terms you could understand and possibly agree with.

What do you think you are doing when you "have sex"? (A term coined in 1929 by an avowed enemy of traditional sexual morality, DH Lawrence) how did this act come about? Why? What purpose is the appetite meant to serve? (And even thinking about what meaning is, and who anything could mean anything to)
And what is the purpose of the condom, then? You may think the answer obvious; I think it needs to be spelled out and considered.

The purpose of "birth control" is to abandon self-control. It is "an expedient by which it is possible to filch the pleasure belonging to a natural process while unnaturally thwarting the process itself".

It means there shall be no birth and no control (of one's self in sexual matters).

Here is an article expounding on the udea:

http://www.gkc.org.uk/gkc/books/Social_Reform_B.C.html

Everything all of you say is aimed at accomplishing that one thing. To steal the pleasure from the process while stopping the process itself. It cannot be put plainer than that, and it is obvious.

The common excuses of economy (we "can't afford children") are general nonsense, not in that there is no financial strain, but in the assumption that one is excused from exercising self-control, and in many of the real cases of what can be afforded. Put more plainly, far more people practice birth control in order to be free for clubs and cinemas in the evening, and to afford iPhones, than actually risk dying of starvation because of children. Furthermore, they presuppose accepting the economic conditions as given and never ask whether it is the economic conditions that ought to be changed, rather than the sexual practices.

So why, then, is the loving monogamous couple (why should they be monogamous? Or even loving? Why not polygamous?) using "birth control"? Speaking of the overwhelming majority, at best, it is because they want all the modern conveniences of life, and they haven't thought about the issue. They just tacitly agree that they don't want children. They want the second car, to pay off the mortgage sooner, etc etc.

And what are the results of adults having few or no children? Well, on having only one, there is a Russian expression: "One child is half a child". There is good folk wisdom behind this (and a lot more that could be said). On (willfully) not having any, I can speak to the rise of the "kidult"; adults who, not being forced to grow up by virtue of having to take care of children, remain in a permanent state of childishness. Thus the modern adult video game industry, thus the waves of superhero films, comic book and gaming conventions where forty and fifty-year old men dress up like Aquaman or Darth Vader, not to entertain children, but themselves.

The old idea was that one man and one woman should become one flesh, to form a single family out of the two lone individuals. But condoms deliberately prevent that union of one flesh, they effectively turn the sex act into a simulation of the act. Other methods do other unnatural and even dangerous things.

The loving couple using birth control does not think about these things, does not intend any wrongdoing. They have been told by society ( that is, by us) that it is a fine and normal thing.

At any rate, your assumptions are NOT self-evident and are certainly debatable. I have the advantage because I already know your arguments.



I really do have many issues with what you say here, both in the form and the content:

1. You quote the term "birth control" as though I had used it. I did not. I used the word "contraception". To then deconstruct a term I did not use to serve your own argument is disingenuous.

2. Neither did I use the term "have sex". I suggested that unless abstention from sex was your proposal (is this what you mean by "self control"? You are very coy on that particular topic), that a couple would inevitably (assuming functional and compatible reproductive systems) end up having a large number of children, and the woman would effectively need to devote herself entirely to the bearing and raising of children for the duration of her fertile years.

3. You say I am "jumping the gun," yet, despite employing many, many words it is not clear what you actually mean. What is "self control" in this context?

4. Your cynical view of humanity, that seems to oppose having as many children as biologically feasible, and unfettered materialism, is simply wrong. There are many, quite reasonable, positions between those two extremes. And most reasonable people are somewhere in the middle of that continuum.

5. An observation: you seem to have an strange obsession with what you term "the condom".

6. You talk of the "overwhelming majority" while citing no evidence to support your claim. This sounds like prejudice to me.

7. May I respectfully suggest that you leave omniscience to your god ("I already know your arguments"). The arrogance of that statement is mind-boggling. You do not know me - that much is evident.

By the way, "practice" is a noun. The verb is "practise". For someone who claims to worry about language, you should probably take note of that.

FB

francobritannique
18-06-2015, 20:00
The trouble with the "enrichment of human knowledge" is that there is only so much by which any of us can be enriched. Now it is true that regarding the details of the universe, scientific and technological knowledge, there can be a collective learning process, though I see that to be fatally flawed by the human tendency toward selfishness, what I call sin. But we can learn things that are not actually the truth of the matter, making our "riches" dust and ashes.

Your understanding of the word "modern" is wholly disconnected from its etymology. I could take most of your words and apply them to "tradition". In both cases we are applying our own subjective understandings to the words. But for words to have meaning between us, that we might speak to, and not past each other, we must speak with reference to the words' roots and history. And "modern" (современный in Russian) is as I said.

Now, if you really reject received wisdom in the light of new evidence and knowledge, I wonder how you came to call it "wisdom" in the first place, and how you can know that your current position of skepticism is not similarly doomed to become such "former received wisdom"; in other words, how you can defend ANY knowledge as sure and not subject to be reversed tomorrow. If you cannot arrive at a final position of surety, which you can be sure is immune to this "light of new evidence and knowledge", you can never find any eternal truth.

All such sure knowledge is an act of faith. Even in denying my ideas, you must have faith in your own. And you cannot "prove" that faith to others. You can only appeal to what is common in us to try to convince.

I do not say or suggest that "ALL" truths have been found. But I do think the most important one HAS been found. There is much we can still learn. But - speaking not in debate, but from my conclusions - I am convinced that God walked the Earth incarnate as a man in relatively recent historical times, that there is an extraordinary abundance of evidence of this I have seen and dealt with the very best of the arguments and skepticism against it, and the latter have lost. I am convinced, not only by intellectual argument, but by broad personal experience of sin, in myself as well as others, and thought about death and meaning in life, that this thing called the Gospel, the Good News, is actually true, and to all who realize that they have cancer, the discovery of a cure for cancer really IS good news.

Where to begin?

1. You charitably accept that "there can be a collective learning process" to seek to understand nature. I presume by that you mean "the scientific method"? You then say that it is somehow spoiled by "sin" !!! What DO you mean, Rus? Is the current research at CERN into the nature of dark matter, sinful? Is research into the role of bacteriophages in the transmission of antibiotic resistance, sinful? Is research into drugs to treat malaria, sinful? Please explain what you mean - it sounds shocking to my ears.

2. Semantics and etymology are often dissociated. As a linguist (as I am) you should know that. I suggest you do some research into the myriad English words whose current meaning bears no real relation to their etymology. Human language is in a constant state of evolution. Again, as a linguist you should know that.

3. You say: "if you really reject received wisdom in the light of new evidence and knowledge, I wonder how you came to call it 'wisdom' in the first place". First of all, I was talking of the principle. It is a fundamental tenet of science that it is imperfect and incomplete. New discoveries can, at a stroke, negate what was believed for centuries to be the truth. That is the nature of knowledge, and that is what I meant. "Received wisdom" is often (not always) the explanation of things that best fits available evidence. When new evidence emerges, that wisdom needs to be revisited.

4. The notion of "eternal truth" is a difficult one. I would argue that it is difficult (if not impossible) to find such a thing, but am open to persuasion if you have compelling evidence. The only example I can come up with is mathematics, that is, in the most pure sense, eternal truth.

5. By saying "all such sure knowledge is an act of faith" you fall into the trap of many who claim that "faith" and "science" are intellectually equal. If I drop an apple while standing in the street, I know that it will fall to the ground. That is not faith - it is the evidence of billions of experiments, formal and informal, that have consistently given the same result. That is "science". If a class of apple emerges that does NOT fall to the ground under these circumstances, I would revise my expectations. That, again, is science. Faith does not work like that. It requires belief without evidence.

6. I will not argue your faith with you - you are entitled to believe what you will, and we can just "agree to disagree" on that. However, I WILL argue strongly against any attempt by you to use your faith as a justification for telling or forcing other people what to do.

FB

vossy7
18-06-2015, 21:01
Any chance you guys can take this offline.....I thought this was done and dusted
:7525:

natlee
18-06-2015, 21:28
Any chance you guys can take this offline.....I thought this was done and dusted
:7525: And Rus has ignored me... where's my hankie :cry:

vossy7
18-06-2015, 22:26
And Rus has ignored me... where's my hankie :cry:
In my top pocket....my poppet :)