Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
0 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   anti-abortion folks still get abortions
riVeRraT
Member (Idle past 416 days)
Posts: 5788
From: NY USA
Joined: 05-09-2004


Message 91 of 301 (298563)
03-27-2006 8:04 AM
Reply to: Message 78 by nator
03-26-2006 8:32 PM


Re: Content, not looks or probable politics!
So, you are a moral relativist, then, just like holmes?
You believe that buggering little children, or infanticide, or taking females as property to be plundered as the spoils of war would be OK as long as "the times were completely different"?
Sorry schraf, but buggering, infanticide, and taking females are not morals.
The reasons for doing those things might be though.
All those things still happen today.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 78 by nator, posted 03-26-2006 8:32 PM nator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 93 by nator, posted 03-27-2006 8:36 AM riVeRraT has replied

PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 92 of 301 (298571)
03-27-2006 8:23 AM
Reply to: Message 87 by riVeRraT
03-27-2006 7:34 AM


Re: Content, not looks or probable politics!
No , I am NOT asking you "if it is clear whether people who are against abortion, and actually get an abortion, do they think that it is not murder."
I am asking you whether it is a harsher judgement of them to say that they do beleive that abortion is child murder - and do it anyway - or if they do not really believe it, when it affects them, yet still go along with the party line.
To my mind the first judgement is far harsher, and therefore the charitiable interpreation is to take the second line.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 87 by riVeRraT, posted 03-27-2006 7:34 AM riVeRraT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 94 by riVeRraT, posted 03-27-2006 8:49 AM PaulK has replied

nator
Member (Idle past 2170 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 93 of 301 (298579)
03-27-2006 8:36 AM
Reply to: Message 91 by riVeRraT
03-27-2006 8:04 AM


Re: Content, not looks or probable politics!
Brenna wrote:
You stoned the girl to death because of those property issues, not because of her base immorality. Read Leviticus.
Then you replied:
quote:
I am not an expert on Leviticus, but I do know that most people who read it, would not understand it, because the times were completely different. It is easy to think how atrocious things were, when in fact they might not have been. It's all relative.
So explain to me why you said that in response to what Brenna posted.
It surely seem to me that you were saying that in the past, stoning women who were adulterers might not have been all that bad, and that it's "all relative".

This message is a reply to:
 Message 91 by riVeRraT, posted 03-27-2006 8:04 AM riVeRraT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 95 by riVeRraT, posted 03-27-2006 8:51 AM nator has replied
 Message 112 by macaroniandcheese, posted 03-27-2006 7:32 PM nator has not replied

riVeRraT
Member (Idle past 416 days)
Posts: 5788
From: NY USA
Joined: 05-09-2004


Message 94 of 301 (298582)
03-27-2006 8:49 AM
Reply to: Message 92 by PaulK
03-27-2006 8:23 AM


Re: Content, not looks or probable politics!
I am asking you whether it is a harsher judgement of them to say that they do beleive that abortion is child murder - and do it anyway - or if they do not really believe it, when it affects them, yet still go along with the party line.
I think I answered that question by saying that yes, being a hypocrite, and a child murderer is worse.
But it has nothing to do with the actual issue.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 92 by PaulK, posted 03-27-2006 8:23 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 96 by PaulK, posted 03-27-2006 9:13 AM riVeRraT has replied

riVeRraT
Member (Idle past 416 days)
Posts: 5788
From: NY USA
Joined: 05-09-2004


Message 95 of 301 (298583)
03-27-2006 8:51 AM
Reply to: Message 93 by nator
03-27-2006 8:36 AM


Re: Content, not looks or probable politics!
It surely seem to me that you were saying that in the past, stoning women who were adulterers might not have been all that bad, and that it's "all relative".
Stoning a woman is not a moral.
Stop taking things out of context, something you bible haters love to do.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 93 by nator, posted 03-27-2006 8:36 AM nator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 99 by nator, posted 03-27-2006 12:48 PM riVeRraT has replied

PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 96 of 301 (298590)
03-27-2006 9:13 AM
Reply to: Message 94 by riVeRraT
03-27-2006 8:49 AM


Re: Content, not looks or probable politics!
From what I can tell you argued the reverse - that it was less harsh to say that they knowingly murdered a child, knowing that it was a horrible crime than to say that they didn't really beleive that that was what they were doing.
And I don't understand why anyone would say that, but you haven't managed to explain your point even now.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 94 by riVeRraT, posted 03-27-2006 8:49 AM riVeRraT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 104 by riVeRraT, posted 03-27-2006 7:13 PM PaulK has replied

sidelined
Member (Idle past 5908 days)
Posts: 3435
From: Edmonton Alberta Canada
Joined: 08-30-2003


Message 97 of 301 (298652)
03-27-2006 11:40 AM
Reply to: Message 81 by redseal
03-27-2006 4:40 AM


Re: Content, not looks or probable politics!
redseal
It is not I who is doing the advocating, it is the Lord God who has dictated His righteous laws. God has proclaimed that the wages of sin is DEATH.
So how about we drop off all the men and women on death row and you can have sit down talk with God and see if you can get him to throw the switch eh?
Although listening to the moral cowards who preach tolerance towards sin, it would seem otherwise, wouldn't it?
Yea, I mean, who can believe some of the crap that people preach eh?
For example
But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.
And this one
But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;
Thank GOD we have you to straighten us out hmmm ? Otherwise such liberal bullshit would somehow actually make it through to us and we would have to give up on the sweet taste of vengence.
Would you care to throw the switch or inject the lethal cocktail redseal?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 81 by redseal, posted 03-27-2006 4:40 AM redseal has not replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 98 of 301 (298670)
03-27-2006 12:22 PM
Reply to: Message 81 by redseal
03-27-2006 4:40 AM


Re: Content, not looks or probable politics!
It is not I who is doing the advocating, it is the Lord God who has dictated His righteous laws. God has proclaimed that the wages of sin is DEATH.
Spiritual death, as I understand it; but beyond that, God has also dictated that any woman who wants an abortion need merely drink a draught created from, among other things, the dust of a temple floor, and God will provide her with an abortion. The temple priest is supposed to help with this procedure.
God's will is that human beings have the right to reproducive choice. That's the inescapable conclusion of the Bible.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 81 by redseal, posted 03-27-2006 4:40 AM redseal has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 100 by ramoss, posted 03-27-2006 1:04 PM crashfrog has not replied
 Message 113 by macaroniandcheese, posted 03-27-2006 7:33 PM crashfrog has replied

nator
Member (Idle past 2170 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 99 of 301 (298681)
03-27-2006 12:48 PM
Reply to: Message 95 by riVeRraT
03-27-2006 8:51 AM


Then answer the question
Brenna wrote:
You stoned the girl to death because of those property issues, not because of her base immorality. Read Leviticus.
Then you replied:
quote:
I am not an expert on Leviticus, but I do know that most people who read it, would not understand it, because the times were completely different. It is easy to think how atrocious things were, when in fact they might not have been. It's all relative.
So explain to me why you said that in response to what Brenna posted.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 95 by riVeRraT, posted 03-27-2006 8:51 AM riVeRraT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 106 by riVeRraT, posted 03-27-2006 7:20 PM nator has not replied

ramoss
Member (Idle past 612 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 08-11-2004


Message 100 of 301 (298689)
03-27-2006 1:04 PM
Reply to: Message 98 by crashfrog
03-27-2006 12:22 PM


Re: Content, not looks or probable politics!
I know that dust is speculated to be part of the component for 'bitter water'.
But, do we have any source that says what it really is?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 98 by crashfrog, posted 03-27-2006 12:22 PM crashfrog has not replied

Silent H
Member (Idle past 5819 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 101 of 301 (298691)
03-27-2006 1:12 PM
Reply to: Message 86 by riVeRraT
03-27-2006 7:29 AM


I was a teen who had sex.
And that means???
NO, because I don't go around trying to judge people.
My question was a response to your statement that you had judged virgins to exhibit some "purity" that others do not.
Yes, it does.
Sex causes disease? Can I ask which ones and what are the mechanisms? If you mean that diseases can be transferred during sex that is different than sex causes disease. Breathing can transfer plenty as well, but my guess is you don't say breathing causes disease.
If you have two people of known health status, and they do not carry any diseases, and they have sex, no disease forms due to their having sex: yes or no?
That is why people never go to phsycologists about sex.
Again, sex itself is not a causative factor here. There are usually problems which effect sexual behavior, and that is why people seek help. People do not go insane because of sex.
Getting AIDS and dying would seem worse to me, but thats just me.
AIDs is caused by HIV, which is a virus. It is spread in many different ways. Do you say that blood transfusions cause AIDs, or that blood transfusions help people, though if the blood source contains HIV a patient may become infected?
It didn't help John Holmes health, and it never hurt Magic Johnsons carreer. Ask any woman who has VD, or vaginal warts, or a yeast infection.
John Holmes became infected with HIV through drug use. If I remember correctly at the time he contracted it he was no longer able to have sex because of drug usage.
Magic Johnson contracted HIV through sex with a person who had HIV. If he had had sex with someone without HIV he would not have suddenly gotten it. It is unknown how the person he contracted it from got it.
The other issues you mention are not caused by sex, they are viral or bacterial. Having sex with an uninfected person, or engaging in sexual acts which cannot allow transferral prevents one from getting anything. These issues do not suddenly spring forth abiogenetically because one has sex.
Women are capable of having yeast infections without sex.
Show some links to your outrageous claims.
You made the claim, I questioned it. I look forward to your putting your money where your mouth is and posting links to support your outrageous claims. Lets start with HIV since you hyped it so much. Show where any study provides evidence the condition is caused by sex.

holmes
"Some day the piecing together of dissociated knowledge will open up such terrifying vistas of reality, and of our frightful position therein, that we shall either go mad from the revelation or flee from the light into the peace and safety of a new dark age." (Lovecraft)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 86 by riVeRraT, posted 03-27-2006 7:29 AM riVeRraT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 108 by riVeRraT, posted 03-27-2006 7:27 PM Silent H has replied
 Message 117 by nator, posted 03-27-2006 11:21 PM Silent H has not replied

Silent H
Member (Idle past 5819 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 102 of 301 (298693)
03-27-2006 1:14 PM
Reply to: Message 89 by nator
03-27-2006 7:53 AM


Re: Content, not looks or probable politics!
I wrote my post carelessly, holmes, sorry.
Okay, but I want to make sure you understand I was not simply arguing that I did not think those were okay. I was also trying to make the point that what you wrote was not a relativist position either. You don't have to respond to this, unless you believe your position was accurate to relativism, and wish to argue that case.
This message has been edited by holmes, 03-27-2006 07:15 PM

holmes
"Some day the piecing together of dissociated knowledge will open up such terrifying vistas of reality, and of our frightful position therein, that we shall either go mad from the revelation or flee from the light into the peace and safety of a new dark age." (Lovecraft)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 89 by nator, posted 03-27-2006 7:53 AM nator has not replied

macaroniandcheese 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3928 days)
Posts: 4258
Joined: 05-24-2004


Message 103 of 301 (298810)
03-27-2006 6:54 PM
Reply to: Message 76 by riVeRraT
03-26-2006 7:18 PM


messed-up virgins
I know a few virgins, and they seem pretty healthy to me. They have a purity about them, that no-one else has.
do you judge this about people normally? it's kinda creepy.
is this something you ask people right out? the thing i have noticed about virgins is that they
1)don't understand the complexities of human relationships
2)are painfully naive
3)believe that someday someone will whisk them away to a castle in the clouds
4)actually believe it when some guy says 'but i love you, baby.'
5)actually believe that love is something other than an evolved expression of the need of humans to group together to best ensure survival
6)are horribly intolerant of their former friends who decided that not being exposed to a penis was not in fact a state of bizarre mystical somethingorother.
i don't tend to think about whether another person has had sex and i don't use it as a judgement of who they are or how they behave. some people are gullible and fall for anything. some are old and wise. i think your idea of purity being related to sex is a creepy one and that instead you should be concerned with what they think about.
mind you. i think about sex less now than i did before i got popped. it was a bizarre obsession and, thankfully, now i'm over it. i wish my parents had not raised me in a "marriage only" house because that led me to fall for the first guy who fed me some crap about how he was gonna marry me. you know what messes up young people? people who lie. honest, open, safe sex between people who are capable of making such decisions without coercion leads to healthy attitudes and responsible sexuality. young people who are suckered in by older people, those who are raised to be ashamed and not discuss sexuality openly with their elders, and those who are too ashamed to go down to the store and buy a box of condoms have unhealthy, "messed-up" sex lives that cause mental instability, irresponsible sexuality, and unwanted pregnancies.
abortion can help a "messed-up" girl take enough time to get some help and figure out what she needs and wants in life without throwing her into a situation she's not prepared to manage. but effective birth control is a much better option. not to mention better sex-ed and better parenting.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 76 by riVeRraT, posted 03-26-2006 7:18 PM riVeRraT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 105 by riVeRraT, posted 03-27-2006 7:15 PM macaroniandcheese has replied

riVeRraT
Member (Idle past 416 days)
Posts: 5788
From: NY USA
Joined: 05-09-2004


Message 104 of 301 (298812)
03-27-2006 7:13 PM
Reply to: Message 96 by PaulK
03-27-2006 9:13 AM


Re: Content, not looks or probable politics!
It's all there.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 96 by PaulK, posted 03-27-2006 9:13 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 118 by PaulK, posted 03-28-2006 1:10 AM riVeRraT has replied

riVeRraT
Member (Idle past 416 days)
Posts: 5788
From: NY USA
Joined: 05-09-2004


Message 105 of 301 (298813)
03-27-2006 7:15 PM
Reply to: Message 103 by macaroniandcheese
03-27-2006 6:54 PM


Re: messed-up virgins
You make a lot of good points, but I think you read into my statement a bit too much.
What concerns me is that you relate your first sexual experience to being popped. Not that mine was any better, or was it all I think it should have been. It wasn't love, that's for sure.
So all that just leads me to believe how sacred being a virgin really is.
This message has been edited by riVeRraT, 03-27-2006 07:18 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 103 by macaroniandcheese, posted 03-27-2006 6:54 PM macaroniandcheese has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 115 by macaroniandcheese, posted 03-27-2006 7:42 PM riVeRraT has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024