ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » USA Politics
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags abortion issues , abortion laws , Kentucky issues , Kentucky laws , Kentucky politics

Reply
Old 11th January 2017, 08:18 AM   #161
turingtest
Mistral, mistral wind...
 
turingtest's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Posts: 3,645
Originally Posted by ChrisBFRPKY View Post
Thank you for providing Fast Eddie B with the case and opinion in my absence.

I think the opinion boiled down to "We the people, believe in a Supreme Being and our institutions likewise presuppose this, but we don't force others to. And, we're not gonna stop believing in a Supreme Being simply because you don't."

Chris B.
That would be the Saturday morning cartoon version, sure.

Anyway...in summary, your evidence that the US was "founded on Christian principles" is

1) not being able to actually find anything in the founding document that embodies Christian principles, but mind-reading the writers to infer it while disregarding what they actually wrote,

and

2) snipping out of context a quote from a SC decision of around 170 years later which said that the government is not in the business of legally treating the Christian "Supreme Being," or Christianity itself as an institution, any worse (or any better) than any other religious institution or its Supreme Being.

What kind of "Christian principles" are these anyway? And I thought the whole idea of being a "Supreme Being" was to be...you know...supreme...and not just equal to any other.
__________________
I'm tired of the bombs, tired of the bullets, tired of the crazies on TV;
I'm the aviator, a dream's a dream whatever it seems
Deep Purple- "The Aviator"

Life was a short shelf that came with bookends- Stephen King

Last edited by turingtest; 11th January 2017 at 09:39 AM. Reason: clarify
turingtest is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th January 2017, 08:20 AM   #162
Argumemnon
World Maker
 
Argumemnon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the thick of things
Posts: 66,187
Originally Posted by Spock Jenkins View Post
I also believe hurdles to adoption should be minimal.

They'll let anyone have a kid. We just deal with the fallout later. So let's let anyone adopt a kid, and deal with the fallout later. What's with all the background checks, etc.? I'd say most people who want a kid on purpose have at least some redeeming qualities, as minimal as they might be. And it gives the child at least a fighting chance.
I agree with that on principle but how do you apply this without veering dangerously close to authoritarian-level social engineering? Something like "you must be in ideological group X in order to reproduce".

ETA: Upon re-reading Spock's post, I'm an idiot.
__________________
<Roar!>

Last edited by Argumemnon; 11th January 2017 at 08:46 AM.
Argumemnon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th January 2017, 08:38 AM   #163
Spock Jenkins
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 484
Originally Posted by Argumemnon View Post
I agree with that on principle but how do you apply this without veering dangerously close to authoritarian-level social engineering? Something like "you must be in ideological group X in order to reproduce".
I actually thought it was quite the opposite. I'm advocating getting away from that and allowing more people who want to be parents to have that opportunity, and giving more people the opportunity to experience "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" by not being terminated.

Perhaps I phrased it poorly.
Spock Jenkins is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th January 2017, 08:39 AM   #164
marplots
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 29,167
I wonder if Kentucky has planned for the expected uptick in state services for the additional unwanted babies? Probably not.

Curious to know how many abortions they have now and what the impact of the new law is going to be on this number.

Last edited by marplots; 11th January 2017 at 08:45 AM.
marplots is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th January 2017, 08:40 AM   #165
Argumemnon
World Maker
 
Argumemnon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the thick of things
Posts: 66,187
Originally Posted by Spock Jenkins View Post
I actually thought it was quite the opposite. I'm advocating getting away from that and allowing more people who want to be parents to have that opportunity, and giving more people the opportunity to experience "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" by not being terminated.

Perhaps I phrased it poorly.
You argued that only people with certain qualities should be able to have kids. That's logically a smaller group than "all people".

ETA: Upon re-reading Spock's post, I'm an idiot.
__________________
<Roar!>

Last edited by Argumemnon; 11th January 2017 at 08:46 AM.
Argumemnon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th January 2017, 08:43 AM   #166
Spock Jenkins
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 484
Originally Posted by Argumemnon View Post
You argued that only people with certain qualities should be able to have kids. That's logically a smaller group than "all people".
Did I? I thought I said that we should reduce the barriers to adoption to make it easier for both the adoptive parents and the birth mother. Thereby making that choice more attractive than terminating a pregnancy.

I must have really botched my wording.
Spock Jenkins is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th January 2017, 08:45 AM   #167
Argumemnon
World Maker
 
Argumemnon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the thick of things
Posts: 66,187
Originally Posted by Spock Jenkins View Post
Did I? I thought I said that we should reduce the barriers to adoption to make it easier for both the adoptive parents and the birth mother. Thereby making that choice more attractive than terminating a pregnancy.

I must have really botched my wording.
Holy hell, no. That was all me. I misread your post and managed to botch my reading on the second read too, basically reading words in the wrong order or adding punctuation that wasn't there. Sorry about that.

Nothing to see here, move along!
__________________
<Roar!>
Argumemnon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th January 2017, 10:18 AM   #168
turingtest
Mistral, mistral wind...
 
turingtest's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Posts: 3,645
Originally Posted by Argumemnon View Post
Holy hell, no. That was all me. I misread your post and managed to botch my reading on the second read too, basically reading words in the wrong order or adding punctuation that wasn't there. Sorry about that.

Nothing to see here, move along!
Well, not so fast, maybe there is something to see here. There are certainly people who could benefit from pausing to consider your post as an example of someone admitting error through misreading (or misunderstanding) someone else's words. (Yes, including me at times) That's too rare a thing, here or anywhere, to say it's "nothing to see."
__________________
I'm tired of the bombs, tired of the bullets, tired of the crazies on TV;
I'm the aviator, a dream's a dream whatever it seems
Deep Purple- "The Aviator"

Life was a short shelf that came with bookends- Stephen King
turingtest is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th January 2017, 10:49 AM   #169
Hlafordlaes
Disorder of Kilopi
 
Hlafordlaes's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: State of Flux
Posts: 5,689
Originally Posted by Reheat View Post
Take your own advice. Since when is a fetus the sole property of a woman? I don't know of a woman since the virgin Mary who reputedly conceived a child without a dick with sperm involved. Who's rights are involved here? Why do you elevate a woman's right over man who caused that woman to conceive?

Do you see the problem here? The promiscuous nature of the current attitude toward morality is what has caused this to be a problem in the first place. That is what's wrong. It is not a question of women's exclusive right at all except in the case of rape. Seek a guide your own morality before lecturing me on women's rights.
I challenge you to cogently argue the ethics from first principles without an appeal to authority. So far, all I see is pure opinion with no work shown. The declarative mode is not a form of rational argument, much to the chagrin of Fox News.

Or, to make the work load lighter, who decides what is ethical behavior in a democracy, and how is this done without undermining the foundations thereof? (It certainly can be done, and is straight-forward to argue; not a trick question.)
Hlafordlaes is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th January 2017, 11:11 AM   #170
Argumemnon
World Maker
 
Argumemnon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the thick of things
Posts: 66,187
Originally Posted by turingtest View Post
Well, not so fast, maybe there is something to see here. There are certainly people who could benefit from pausing to consider your post as an example of someone admitting error through misreading (or misunderstanding) someone else's words. (Yes, including me at times) That's too rare a thing, here or anywhere, to say it's "nothing to see."
No, no, no. The last thing I want you to notice is that I have the ability to make mistakes!
__________________
<Roar!>
Argumemnon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th January 2017, 11:37 AM   #171
fuelair
Cythraul Enfys
 
fuelair's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 54,715
Originally Posted by ChrisBFRPKY View Post
Or how about:

"The right to choose to kill another human without going to jail for it"

A little more truth and a little less deception is what's required. Snowflake terms applied to a murderous act just don't do it justice. Let's call it what it is.

Everyone has the "right to choose" whether to take a life or not. It's the ease by which taking a life is viewed and the get out of jail free part that are upsetting so many Bible thumpers.

Abortion is currently legal though. I wonder if we can put a new law on the books that allows a mother to kill her child up until it's one year old instead?

Better you think? The morality of the one is no different than the other.

Chris B.
No one (outside of any remaining cultures practicing leaving a deformed/otherwise unwanted baby out somewhere to die) is saying kill a delivered baby. Prior to birth, abortion should be legal. After birth, protected. ETA: YMMV, but that would not make it right.
__________________
There is no problem so great that it cannot be fixed by small explosives carefully placed.

Wash this space!

We fight for the Lady Babylon!!!

Last edited by fuelair; 11th January 2017 at 11:38 AM.
fuelair is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th January 2017, 12:07 PM   #172
fuelair
Cythraul Enfys
 
fuelair's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 54,715
Originally Posted by Peter i View Post
So am I!

You would think, that a general improvement in public health, better education, not constantly making an effort to keep the poor as poor as possible would be a priority for any decent person?


But when you look at the US as an outsider (I have lived in the US too), it honestly looks like it is a well defined political agenda, to keep as many people as possible both dumb and poor.

Not so long ago the US was in the forefront of developed nations with regards to science, education, health, innovation and such.
The rest of the world basically adored the US.

And then they lost it.
Somehow the people who would have a real benefit from real health and education reforms were convinced, that they should vote for the people least likely to do that.
And now they have elected an orange buffoon for president. The very type of person who has ********** up their lives, health and economy.


I really wonder why!
Stupidity, ignorance, inability to distinguish friend from foe or semi-good from pure evil for starters.
__________________
There is no problem so great that it cannot be fixed by small explosives carefully placed.

Wash this space!

We fight for the Lady Babylon!!!
fuelair is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th January 2017, 12:11 PM   #173
Delphic Oracle
Graduate Poster
 
Delphic Oracle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2016
Posts: 1,793
Originally Posted by marplots View Post
Whomever and whatever they do now.



That doesn't make sense. Unless you think moral judgements are dependent on the willingness to pay for the consequences? Is there a name for that moral theory?
I think having moral opinions is one thing. I think imposing those moral opinions is going to mean a change in the results observed, i.e. consequences.

I call that the theory of reality.
Delphic Oracle is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th January 2017, 05:58 PM   #174
marplots
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 29,167
Originally Posted by Delphic Oracle View Post
I think having moral opinions is one thing. I think imposing those moral opinions is going to mean a change in the results observed, i.e. consequences.

I call that the theory of reality.
Requiring others act morally sounds like a moral judgement as well. If I take the antiabortion side seriously - that is, they believe what they say - then what am I to make of the "abortion is murder" slogan? Surely, I too would act to prevent murders without much regard for what happens next, simply because murder is so morally objectionable. If the victim of the hypothetical murder were, for instance, someone with ALS, I wouldn't feel I'd taken on the burden of their care, just because I prevented the killing.

Now, I should be clear - I am not against abortion on those grounds, I'm trying to point out that antiabortion advocates don't necessarily take on the chore of "what happens next." At least, not on moral grounds.
marplots is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th January 2017, 09:14 PM   #175
ChrisBFRPKY
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 2,588
Originally Posted by turingtest View Post
That would be the Saturday morning cartoon version, sure.

Anyway...in summary, your evidence that the US was "founded on Christian principles" is

1) not being able to actually find anything in the founding document that embodies Christian principles, but mind-reading the writers to infer it while disregarding what they actually wrote,

and

2) snipping out of context a quote from a SC decision of around 170 years later which said that the government is not in the business of legally treating the Christian "Supreme Being," or Christianity itself as an institution, any worse (or any better) than any other religious institution or its Supreme Being.

What kind of "Christian principles" are these anyway? And I thought the whole idea of being a "Supreme Being" was to be...you know...supreme...and not just equal to any other.
1. I've already demonstrated the Christian principles that were used and the founders reasons and background as Christian men. This also ties with the fact that they were Masons and so each had professed a belief in a Supreme being. If you missed my post please go back and reread.

2. A Supreme Court decision based on an opinion stating we (The US) presuppose the existence of a Supreme being negates your argument completely. That's it, end of story. So there it is.

Chris B.
__________________
One could choose to be civil though and still disagree. For example, since I know Bigfoot does exist, I don't call others "idiot" just because they're uneducated on the subject and share a different view based on that lack of experience. Chris B.
ChrisBFRPKY is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th January 2017, 09:19 PM   #176
thaiboxerken
Penultimate Amazing
 
thaiboxerken's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Posts: 28,007
What Christian principles?

Also, the presupposition of a "supreme being" is not a Christian principle, but a theist principle.
__________________
All national institutions of churches, whether Jewish, Christian or Turkish, appear to me no other than human inventions, set up to terrify and enslave mankind, and monopolize power & profit - Thomas Paine
thaiboxerken is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th January 2017, 09:28 PM   #177
marplots
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 29,167
Originally Posted by thaiboxerken View Post
What Christian principles?

Also, the presupposition of a "supreme being" is not a Christian principle, but a theist principle.
Aren't Christians theists?
marplots is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th January 2017, 09:30 PM   #178
thaiboxerken
Penultimate Amazing
 
thaiboxerken's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Posts: 28,007
Originally Posted by marplots View Post
Aren't Christians theists?
Yes. What's your point?

All theists believe there is a supreme being. Not all theists are christian. In other words, for the small-minded, proving something is theistic doesn't mean it is christian.
__________________
All national institutions of churches, whether Jewish, Christian or Turkish, appear to me no other than human inventions, set up to terrify and enslave mankind, and monopolize power & profit - Thomas Paine
thaiboxerken is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th January 2017, 09:38 PM   #179
marplots
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 29,167
Originally Posted by thaiboxerken View Post
Yes. What's your point?

All theists believe there is a supreme being. Not all theists are christian. In other words, for the small-minded, proving something is theistic doesn't mean it is christian.
No, but belief in a supreme being is a Christian principle. Not exclusively or uniquely Christian, but part of the Christian package.

I don't see how it serves the argument to dodge this.
marplots is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th January 2017, 09:41 PM   #180
thaiboxerken
Penultimate Amazing
 
thaiboxerken's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Posts: 28,007
It's not a "Christian principle" if it is common to every theist.
__________________
All national institutions of churches, whether Jewish, Christian or Turkish, appear to me no other than human inventions, set up to terrify and enslave mankind, and monopolize power & profit - Thomas Paine
thaiboxerken is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th January 2017, 09:47 PM   #181
marplots
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 29,167
Originally Posted by thaiboxerken View Post
It's not a "Christian principle" if it is common to every theist.
Yes, Christians are one type of theist. Was the argument going to be that the founding fathers were Muslim? That would be cool.

ETA: If it isn't part of Christianity, I'd love to see an example of a Christian who didn't believe in God.
marplots is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th January 2017, 09:49 PM   #182
ChrisBFRPKY
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 2,588
Originally Posted by Argumemnon View Post
That only works if you assume that everyone agrees with your premise. An unviable foetus isn't a person.
I don't know,I consider you to be a person, yet at one time you were an unviable foetus. If you'll note, even the definition of "foetus" specifically calls them a prenatal human being........

Some may argue that doesn't make one a person, but in reality isn't that exactly what makes a person?

I think the common argument now is the heartbeat. I think it should be the DNA content. If there's enough DNA content to make a person, that's what you have obviously. And that person deserves protection.

I know someone will ask "Well what about rape?" and "What about incest?"
Obviously those are horrible crimes and the woman was the victim. However,instead of punishing the unborn with a death sentence, let's punish the perpetrator instead. If the mother does not wish to keep a child which came about as a result of said crimes, she should give it up for adoption, not kill it.

Punishing the innocent for the sins of the father? No where else in our Constitution is that allowed except for abortion.


Chris B.
__________________
One could choose to be civil though and still disagree. For example, since I know Bigfoot does exist, I don't call others "idiot" just because they're uneducated on the subject and share a different view based on that lack of experience. Chris B.
ChrisBFRPKY is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th January 2017, 09:51 PM   #183
Delphic Oracle
Graduate Poster
 
Delphic Oracle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2016
Posts: 1,793
All of this, of course, completely misses the point that people who have been dead for 200 years have no say in how out country runs now, regardless of what the results of our debating their intentions or motives were produces.
Delphic Oracle is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th January 2017, 03:35 AM   #184
Argumemnon
World Maker
 
Argumemnon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the thick of things
Posts: 66,187
Originally Posted by ChrisBFRPKY View Post
I don't know,I consider you to be a person, yet at one time you were an unviable foetus.
Earlier than that, I was unrelated atoms, too. That I'm a person now and here doesn't mean I'm a person across the entire space-time continuum.

Quote:
Some may argue that doesn't make one a person, but in reality isn't that exactly what makes a person?
Isn't what what makes a person?

Quote:
I think the common argument now is the heartbeat.
Which is nonsense.

Quote:
I think it should be the DNA content. If there's enough DNA content to make a person, that's what you have obviously.
Every single cell in my body is a human person, by this logic. Except my sperm.

Quote:
I know someone will ask "Well what about rape?" and "What about incest?"
Obviously those are horrible crimes and the woman was the victim. However,instead of punishing the unborn with a death sentence, let's punish the perpetrator instead.
I used to throw this argument around until I realised how stupid it is: we're not punishing anyone. We're allowing the pregnancy to be terminated.
__________________
<Roar!>
Argumemnon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th January 2017, 04:07 AM   #185
twinstead
Penultimate Amazing
 
twinstead's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 12,368
Originally Posted by ChrisBFRPKY View Post
I don't know,I consider you to be a person, yet at one time you were an unviable foetus. If you'll note, even the definition of "foetus" specifically calls them a prenatal human being........

Some may argue that doesn't make one a person, but in reality isn't that exactly what makes a person?

I think the common argument now is the heartbeat. I think it should be the DNA content. If there's enough DNA content to make a person, that's what you have obviously. And that person deserves protection.

I know someone will ask "Well what about rape?" and "What about incest?"
Obviously those are horrible crimes and the woman was the victim. However,instead of punishing the unborn with a death sentence, let's punish the perpetrator instead. If the mother does not wish to keep a child which came about as a result of said crimes, she should give it up for adoption, not kill it.

Punishing the innocent for the sins of the father? No where else in our Constitution is that allowed except for abortion.


Chris B.
This is what you believe, and I respect that. However not everybody does. I disagree with your definition of when life starts, and that termination of a pregnancy is 'punishment' of a fetus. IMO making a woman keep a child of rape is punishment of the mother.

Where does that leave us?
__________________
You are not entitled to your opinion. You are entitled to your INFORMED opinion. No one is entitled to be ignorant. -- Harlan Ellison
twinstead is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th January 2017, 04:46 AM   #186
Foolmewunz
Grammar Resistance Leader
TLA Dictator
 
Foolmewunz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Pattaya, Thailand
Posts: 36,374
Originally Posted by ChrisBFRPKY View Post
1. I've already demonstrated the Christian principles that were used and the founders reasons and background as Christian men. This also ties with the fact that they were Masons and so each had professed a belief in a Supreme being. If you missed my post please go back and reread.

2. A Supreme Court decision based on an opinion stating we (The US) presuppose the existence of a Supreme being negates your argument completely. That's it, end of story. So there it is.

Chris B.
Hilited: Do you just repeat any old drek you've heard on Alex Jones? Could you even name the Freemasons of the original Founding Fathers (hallowed be their name)? The chief author of the Declaration and the Constitution? To the best of my recollection, neither was a Mason.

Perhaps you could cite the sources of some of your Oh Gosh claims? We're all hear to learn, after all.
__________________
Ha! Foolmewunz has just been added to the list of people who aren't complete idiots. Hokulele
"Chicken **** Poster!"
Help! We're being attacked by sea lions!
Foolmewunz is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th January 2017, 04:55 AM   #187
ChrisBFRPKY
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 2,588
Originally Posted by Argumemnon View Post
Earlier than that, I was unrelated atoms, too. That I'm a person now and here doesn't mean I'm a person across the entire space-time continuum.



Isn't what what makes a person?



Which is nonsense.



Every single cell in my body is a human person, by this logic. Except my sperm.



I used to throw this argument around until I realised how stupid it is: we're not punishing anyone. We're allowing the pregnancy to be terminated.
A foetus makes a human being.

We disagree. I'll leave it at that.
Chris B.
__________________
One could choose to be civil though and still disagree. For example, since I know Bigfoot does exist, I don't call others "idiot" just because they're uneducated on the subject and share a different view based on that lack of experience. Chris B.
ChrisBFRPKY is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th January 2017, 05:05 AM   #188
ChrisBFRPKY
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 2,588
Originally Posted by Foolmewunz View Post
Hilited: Do you just repeat any old drek you've heard on Alex Jones? Could you even name the Freemasons of the original Founding Fathers (hallowed be their name)? The chief author of the Declaration and the Constitution? To the best of my recollection, neither was a Mason.

Perhaps you could cite the sources of some of your Oh Gosh claims? We're all hear to learn, after all.
It's well known the founders were Masons. Try looking at a map of DC and the Capitol Mall, draw a few lines. You may be surprised what you find. I'm not going to ruin it for you. If you are curious, do the work. It's worth it and very enlightening.
Chris B.
__________________
One could choose to be civil though and still disagree. For example, since I know Bigfoot does exist, I don't call others "idiot" just because they're uneducated on the subject and share a different view based on that lack of experience. Chris B.
ChrisBFRPKY is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th January 2017, 05:51 AM   #189
Argumemnon
World Maker
 
Argumemnon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the thick of things
Posts: 66,187
Originally Posted by ChrisBFRPKY View Post
A foetus makes a human being.

We disagree. I'll leave it at that.
Fine. I'd just like to hear your rationale for that. Your DNA argument doesn't work.
__________________
<Roar!>
Argumemnon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th January 2017, 06:36 AM   #190
turingtest
Mistral, mistral wind...
 
turingtest's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Posts: 3,645
Originally Posted by marplots View Post
No, but belief in a supreme being is a Christian principle. Not exclusively or uniquely Christian, but part of the Christian package.

I don't see how it serves the argument to dodge this.
There's no dodging involved in pointing out that a central belief of one religious system of principles that's not an exclusive principle of that one religion (Christianity) isn't enough to identify it specifically as a central part of another system of principles (the US Constitution). Whether belief in a Supreme Being is a Christian principle that's part of the Christian package isn't the issue- it's whether the package is part of the Constitution. If you pick and choose like that, you negate the whole idea of Christianity as a system; then it doesn't matter what principles it has, it's strictly a cafeteria deal, and any religion at all can eat in that restaurant.
__________________
I'm tired of the bombs, tired of the bullets, tired of the crazies on TV;
I'm the aviator, a dream's a dream whatever it seems
Deep Purple- "The Aviator"

Life was a short shelf that came with bookends- Stephen King
turingtest is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th January 2017, 06:38 AM   #191
turingtest
Mistral, mistral wind...
 
turingtest's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Posts: 3,645
Originally Posted by Argumemnon View Post
Fine. I'd just like to hear your rationale for that. Your DNA argument doesn't work.
"Nobody beats The Riz."

That's it, end of story. So there it is.
__________________
I'm tired of the bombs, tired of the bullets, tired of the crazies on TV;
I'm the aviator, a dream's a dream whatever it seems
Deep Purple- "The Aviator"

Life was a short shelf that came with bookends- Stephen King
turingtest is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th January 2017, 06:51 AM   #192
marplots
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 29,167
Originally Posted by turingtest View Post
There's no dodging involved in pointing out that a central belief of one religious system of principles that's not an exclusive principle of that one religion (Christianity) isn't enough to identify it specifically as a central part of another system of principles (the US Constitution). Whether belief in a Supreme Being is a Christian principle that's part of the Christian package isn't the issue- it's whether the package is part of the Constitution. If you pick and choose like that, you negate the whole idea of Christianity as a system; then it doesn't matter what principles it has, it's strictly a cafeteria deal, and any religion at all can eat in that restaurant.
Surely it has evidentiary value?

We can start with whether or not the founders (whatever that's supposed to mean) were atheists or theists. If we agree they believed in a supreme being, then they are theists - as already agreed to. Now, we can ask what brand of theist were they? If the dominant religion of the time and place is Christianity, it seems like a small step to assume they were Christians. And by that I mean they would be identified at the time as Christian by their peers - not that we can see into their long-dead heads and know for sure.

Do they have to be Christians to found the country on Christian principles? No. Presumably an educated person of the time would "know their bible." Heck, I'm an atheist and I know it fairly well. It is perfectly possible for me to use ideas I've extracted from the bible - even though I don't think they are divinely authored.

The real nut of the conversation, and the part I don't think has been argued very well, is separating out just what a "Christian principle" is supposed to mean, short of actually worshiping Jesus. That whole bit needs clarification.
marplots is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th January 2017, 06:53 AM   #193
Worm
Graduate Poster
 
Worm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 1,489
Originally Posted by ChrisBFRPKY View Post
It's well known the founders were Masons. Try looking at a map of DC and the Capitol Mall, draw a few lines. You may be surprised what you find. I'm not going to ruin it for you. If you are curious, do the work. It's worth it and very enlightening.
Chris B.
Look at a map of pretty much any major city and draw a few lines and you'll no doubt come up with some symbols that conspiracy nuts would consider to be significant in some way. Nothing to be gained, but if it keeps you amused, carry on.
__________________
"Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent" Isaac Asimov

Not all cults are bad - I've joined a cult of niceness
Worm is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th January 2017, 07:09 AM   #194
surrogate
Critical Thinker
 
surrogate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Somewhere within the Orion Arm
Posts: 318
Originally Posted by ChrisBFRPKY View Post
I know someone will ask "Well what about rape?" and "What about incest?"
Obviously those are horrible crimes and the woman was the victim. However,instead of punishing the unborn with a death sentence, let's punish the perpetrator instead. If the mother does not wish to keep a child which came about as a result of said crimes, she should give it up for adoption, not kill it.

Punishing the innocent for the sins of the father? No where else in our Constitution is that allowed except for abortion.


Chris B.
What about when the rape happens in the city and the woman doesn't cry loud enough? Are we supposed to wait until after she delivers to stone her?
surrogate is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th January 2017, 07:36 AM   #195
Finster
Muse
 
Finster's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 949
Originally Posted by marplots View Post
No, but belief in a supreme being is a Christian principle. Not exclusively or uniquely Christian, but part of the Christian package.

I don't see how it serves the argument to dodge this.
Technically and Trivially true, but so what?

If the argument is that some of the principles the country was founding on are the same as some of the principles of some versions of Christianity ... yeh, that's probably true, but again, so what? I'm pretty sure that's not the intent of most people that feel the need to say the country was founded on Christian principles.

You can also say that some of the founding principles are the same as some Muslim principles
And some Jewish Principles,
and some Hindi principles,
and some Buddhist principles,
and some Wicca principles,
and some of Charles Manson's principles,
and some Jedi principles,
etc.

That's all fine and well until you try to use it as a reason to give special consideration to one religious view over others, or none. (which in my experience is the only reason anyone brings up the founded on Christian principles crap.)
__________________
"You can't help respecting anybody who can spell TUESDAY, even if he doesn't spell it right; but spelling isn't everything. There are days when spelling Tuesday simply doesn't count." - WtP
Finster is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th January 2017, 07:55 AM   #196
turingtest
Mistral, mistral wind...
 
turingtest's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Posts: 3,645
Originally Posted by marplots View Post
Surely it has evidentiary value?
(Shrug) It's a data point. Isolated from any other data points that would give it some consilience justifying a conclusion, it has about as much evidentiary value as me concluding that my having had eggs for breakfast means that's all anyone ever has for breakfast. It's a claim of exclusivity based on one rigidly isolated identifier.
Quote:
We can start with whether or not the founders (whatever that's supposed to mean) were atheists or theists. If we agree they believed in a supreme being, then they are theists - as already agreed to. Now, we can ask what brand of theist were they? If the dominant religion of the time and place is Christianity, it seems like a small step to assume they were Christians. And by that I mean they would be identified at the time as Christian by their peers - not that we can see into their long-dead heads and know for sure.
No argument that they weren't Christians (generally speaking, and, by some of today's fundy standards, only loosely so).
Quote:
Do they have to be Christians to found the country on Christian principles? No. Presumably an educated person of the time would "know their bible." Heck, I'm an atheist and I know it fairly well. It is perfectly possible for me to use ideas I've extracted from the bible - even though I don't think they are divinely authored.
Well, if you concede that they were Christians (as I have), then the question is really "do the principles they founded the country on have to be Christian ones?" If the claim is that the founding principles are Christian principles, then the commonality being claimed is the body of principles, not who wrote them. As you yourself say, an atheist could use Christian ideas; by the same token, a Christian could certainly use secular ones. So the whole "founders were Christians!" thing is essentially an irrelevant side-issue.
Quote:
The real nut of the conversation, and the part I don't think has been argued very well, is separating out just what a "Christian principle" is supposed to mean, short of actually worshiping Jesus. That whole bit needs clarification.
Agreed- by the ones making the claim. That would be the Christians.


Side note- this is what I come to this forum for, a little intellectual exercise. It's nice to be able to have a discussion on a more stimulating level than "that's my story and I'm sticking to it, bite me leftists, lol."
__________________
I'm tired of the bombs, tired of the bullets, tired of the crazies on TV;
I'm the aviator, a dream's a dream whatever it seems
Deep Purple- "The Aviator"

Life was a short shelf that came with bookends- Stephen King
turingtest is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th January 2017, 08:30 AM   #197
Foolmewunz
Grammar Resistance Leader
TLA Dictator
 
Foolmewunz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Pattaya, Thailand
Posts: 36,374
Originally Posted by ChrisBFRPKY View Post
It's well known the founders were Masons. Try looking at a map of DC and the Capitol Mall, draw a few lines. You may be surprised what you find. I'm not going to ruin it for you. If you are curious, do the work. It's worth it and very enlightening.
Chris B.
"It's well known".... is it? No wonder you're a Trumpista. This is the direct cousin of "People are saying...."

It's a whackjob conspiracy theory. It comes from the likes of Icke and Jones. As noted, you can find patterns in anything if you look hard enough. If only we had a good skeptical word for that.
__________________
Ha! Foolmewunz has just been added to the list of people who aren't complete idiots. Hokulele
"Chicken **** Poster!"
Help! We're being attacked by sea lions!
Foolmewunz is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th January 2017, 08:42 AM   #198
ChrisBFRPKY
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 2,588
Originally Posted by Argumemnon View Post
Fine. I'd just like to hear your rationale for that. Your DNA argument doesn't work.
Interesting to note, there's a theory that was proposed a few years back that all life on Earth formed from a single celled organism. My aren't we lucky it wasn't squished.
Chris B.
__________________
One could choose to be civil though and still disagree. For example, since I know Bigfoot does exist, I don't call others "idiot" just because they're uneducated on the subject and share a different view based on that lack of experience. Chris B.
ChrisBFRPKY is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th January 2017, 08:43 AM   #199
ChrisBFRPKY
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 2,588
Originally Posted by Foolmewunz View Post
"It's well known".... is it? No wonder you're a Trumpista. This is the direct cousin of "People are saying...."

It's a whackjob conspiracy theory. It comes from the likes of Icke and Jones. As noted, you can find patterns in anything if you look hard enough. If only we had a good skeptical word for that.
Wow

Chris B.
__________________
One could choose to be civil though and still disagree. For example, since I know Bigfoot does exist, I don't call others "idiot" just because they're uneducated on the subject and share a different view based on that lack of experience. Chris B.
ChrisBFRPKY is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th January 2017, 08:45 AM   #200
ChrisBFRPKY
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 2,588
Originally Posted by surrogate View Post
What about when the rape happens in the city and the woman doesn't cry loud enough? Are we supposed to wait until after she delivers to stone her?
Dang, you're gettin' Old Testament on me.

Chris B.
__________________
One could choose to be civil though and still disagree. For example, since I know Bigfoot does exist, I don't call others "idiot" just because they're uneducated on the subject and share a different view based on that lack of experience. Chris B.
ChrisBFRPKY is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » USA Politics

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 08:57 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
2014, TribeTech AB. All Rights Reserved.
This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.