If "the law" says that "a fetus is not a human being", then it is "the law" that is either lying or ignorant. Any modern textbook on Human Biology will say that a fetus is a human life.

The debate is whether or not a fetus is a person, not whether or not it is a human life (being).

Well said.

lol, look at the creationist appealing to biology textbooks.

Exodus 21 is one of my arguments against abortion. There are Natural Law arguments against abortion as well. Atheists and Agnostics of good will ought also to oppose abortion.

If the type of slavery covered in Exodus 21 was legally permitted in the United States, then following the guidelines of Exodus 21 would be fine.

But the current socio-economic situation in the United States would make the type of slavery that Exodus 21 is talking about neither desireable nor good in any way.

I Biology

Unlike the "from the goo to the zoo to you" crowd, I believe in real science.

Right, you’re happy to appeal to biology textbooks only insofar as you think they agree with your bronze-age worldview. It’s obvious bad faith.


I’m quite certain that standard bio texts don’t get into the thorny question of when exactly the transition from undifferentiated cells to full personhood happens. Or maybe they do, who know wtf Texas puts in its schoolbooks these days.

What an absolute psychopath. No, slavery is not “fine,” no matter what your silly holy book says.

They put a lot of common sense in them. Something a lot of people in this forum lack.

I thought you lived in Arizona?

I challenge you to find a post by me saying that I live in Arizona.

You could just say where you live like a normal person would.

Come on. The challenge isn't difficult. It's not like I'm a professional troll like most of you in this forum are with thousands of posts to your name.

Human being normally means a person which means a development that's somewhere near what we would call a baby.

Calling a fetus a human being is just a semantics trick that you think allows you to say babies are legally killed. It's stupid.

There are stages of development which is why they made up names for them.
An embryo is not a fetus and a fetus is not a baby.

As I said before, it would be more persuasive if you made an honest argument about why abortion is immoral. It's a pretty easy argument to make but you keep messing it up with your BS.

Professional means you get paid.

I can't imagine you're a professional anything.

Even worse, ya'll troll for free. LOL

(So you don't have to cite or repeat my questions and can just reply, you can just cite the number and begin your response)


1.

Laggy you are badly conflating 'Legal imposition' on another with 'Moral imposition on another' and I think you are doing it purposely so despite knowing how fallacious that is.

And while certainly some morals do inform most laws there is a vast difference between a law prohibiting murder (aggression against another) and the basket of moral based prohibitions that would legally prevent a black and white person marrying consensually which is the basket you are arguing for to exist.

You are trying to conflate these types of prohibitions as equivalent and thus equally relevant and you are just wrong there.

Do you understand why this type of conflation is wrong? Why it is fine for one person to hold their own moral view that race mixing is wrong but to try and impose that on others is wrong? Discuss


(and please don't waste our time by acting if the specifics (race mixing)is the point and you would never agree with that, because then all you are saying is that only the 'moral impositions' you agree with are the OK ones to impose. The ones other think ok to impose that I disagree with clearly should not be. I hope you understand how fallacious such an attempted distinction would be.)



---------------------

2.


Laggy if the US was to become more Muslim than Christian would you agree with them being able to impose their morals on you, your family, friends, with the force of law or would you want and expect them to live via their morals and leave you to do same?

Would you expect the US Constitution to protect you such that they could practice their beliefs and you would be left to follow your own?

This is much less of a problem than you think it is. This comment reflects more poorly on you than a Christian.

You can believe in a creator and still marvel at the inner workings of the universe and want to understand what makes it tick. These two things are not mutually exclusive.

Earth is an extremely complicated watch sitting on a cosmic beach with nothing else like it. Many people live their lives believing the watchmaker is out there somewhere. Others don't, and want to figure out how the cosmic sand organized itself into the form of said watch. Both can find satisfaction in looking beyond the face.

"Hurrr durrr look at these people who believe in a sky daddy" is such a low effort approach. Raptor Jesus would be very disappointed in you.

So why do you think of all the things the Bible chose to not full throated endorse, the 'right to life' or any type of 'pro life' position was not one?

I mean it is absolutely and abundantly clear what the bible thinks should be done to transgressors of many 'sins', such as theft, etc and yet there is only one disputed verse on anything resembling fetal right to life (abortion pro life stance) that you have quoted, and so many verses that call for ending the life of the unborn in so many circumstances where the unborn are solely collateral damage for another person's sin?

OK, but you’re still a creationist.

Oh and when you say this...

By "fine" you mean it would morally correct and not a sin to practice that type of slavery TODAY but the 'law' is preventing it, thus it would be wrong in that it would transgress the law. But it would not be a moral wrong.

Is that correct? Because that would seem consistent with your prior post to me, where I quoted the scripture passage where God commanded that if a man knew a neighbouring town was tolerating homosexuality (?) in their midst and turning a blind eye, then that man should go into that town and kill every single man, woman and child, and all their pets and farm animals.

You commented back to me that it would be correct for that man to follow God's instruction and do that because if God commanded it (and he did in that verse) by virtue of it being God's word it cannot be sin nor immoral.

Is that accurate and is that where your view re slavery would be "fine" "if" that type of slavery was condoned in the Bible (it is)?

More simply 'nothing the bible explicitly directs be done or condones can be a sin or morally wrong as the bible is God's word and thus by default anything God commands or condones is neither sin nor immoral by default. If God commands or condones it is by default necessarily good, since God is good'.

Fair summary of your view?

Did you go through all the trouble to make an account here to laugh at us because we aren't getting paid to post ?

Brilliant.

Yes QP, very troubling that lagtight believes that slavery described in the Bible should be legal. That HAS to be his viewpoint.

Shocking that the Bible-thumping laggy has horrible views on slavery and the rights of women.

While there are a lot of reasons to laugh at you, that isn't at the top of the list I'm afraid.

This thread, from the little I've admittedly seen, sums up the abortion "debate" pretty well. A gaggle of semi incel and what I can only assume are some full on virgins going on abt a woman's body without one woman chiming in

How do you know none of these people are women?

Honestly, I would be quite surprised if Montrealcorp was a man. Just saying.