• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Question for anti-abortionists

DavidFirth

DavidFirth

Well-Known Member
Valjean said:
"Point noted."
For a poster with many strong opinions, you do a remarkably poor job logically defending them, and show remarkably little interest in alternative points of view offered by other posters.
Click to expand...

Anything and everything contradictory to God's word is rejected.
 
DavidFirth

DavidFirth

Well-Known Member
It Aint Necessarily So said:
I was involved in this discussion a while back on another message board. Some people were very offended and angered at the use of the term parasite to describe the relationship of a mammalian fetus to its mother. Parasite is a derogatory term when used in a metaphorical sense, as in calling somebody a societal parasite.

But in the biological sense, the term is neutral, not judgmental, and merely describes the relationship between two creatures. When one benefits and the other benefits as well, biologists call the relationship mutualism. If one benefits and the other is unaffected, it is commensalism. And if one benefits at the cost of the other, it's parasitism. No judgment, just an objective description. These definitions come from assorted medical dictionaries:

[1] "A plant or animal that lives upon or within another living organism at whose expense it obtains some advantage." - Dorland's Medical Dictionary for Health Consumers

[2] "An organism that grows, feeds, and is sheltered on or in a different organism while contributing nothing to the survival of its host." - The American Heritage Medical Dictionary

[3] "An organism that lives in or with another organism, called the host, in parasitism, a type of association characterized by the parasite obtaining benefits from the host, such as food, and the host being injured as a result." - Gale Encyclopedia of Medicine

[4] "An organism living in or on and obtaining nourishment from another organism." - Mosby's Medical Dictionary​

The discussion went on for weeks, and was very heated. People accused others of using the word to describe a fetus just to dehumanize it and justify abortion. It was pointed out that even when the mother was excited to be pregnant and anxious to bear a child, the relationship between these two organisms still qualified as parasitic, and that there was no need to have an emotional reaction, but that didn't matter.

It was noted that the science of parasitology has its own understanding of what constitutes a parasite. The parasite needs to be of another species than the host, and had to cause disease, not just drain resources. The angry posters insisted that only this definition and the derogatory metaphorical one were valid, and continued to object strenuously and angrily to a fetus being classified as a parasite.
Click to expand...

Just chalk that up as another scientific opinion I give no credence to.
 
It Aint Necessarily So

It Aint Necessarily So

Veteran Member
Premium Member
DavidFirth said:
Not according to the Bible. I am no animal.
Click to expand...

I've lost count of how many times that Christians have told me that the Bible is not a science book. I guess that you're not one of them.

If you're going to use it as a source of scientific fact, you're going to need to make a few more changes to your scientific fund of knowledge:

[1] The bat is a bird (Lev. 11:19, Deut. 14:11, 18);

[2] Some fowls are four-footed (Lev. 11:20-21);

[3] Some creeping insects have four legs. (Lev. 11:22-23);

[4] Hares chew the cud (Lev. 11:6);

[5] Conies chew the cud (Lev. 11:5);

[6] Camels don't divide the hoof (Lev. 11:4);

[7] The earth was formed out of and by means of water (2 Peter 3:5 RSV);

[8] The earth rest on pillars (1 Sam. 2:8);

[9] The earth won't be moved (1Chron. 16:30);

[10] A hare does not divide the hoof (Deut. 14:7);

[11] The rainbow is not as old as rain and sunshine (Gen. 9:13);

[12] A mustard seed is the smallest of all seeds and grows into the greatest of all shrubs (Matt. 13:31-32 RSV);

[13] Turtles have voices (Song of Sol. 2:12);

[14] The earth has ends or edges (Job 37:3);

[15] The earth has four corners (Isa. 11:12, Rev. 7:1);

[16] Some 4-legged animals fly (Lev. 11:21);

[17] The world's language didn't evolve but appeared suddenly (Gen. 11:6-9)

[18] A fetus can understand speech (Luke 1:44)

[19] The moon is a light source like the sun (Gen 1:16)

​
 
Valjean

Valjean

Veteran Member
Premium Member
DavidFirth said:
Any argument against God's word is rejected.
Click to expand...
And which word of God would that be? The Quran? The Gita? The theory of special relativity?

"I believe it. I won't defend my belief. I'm not interested in your opinions on the matter." -- not very fertile soil for discussion.
 
DavidFirth

DavidFirth

Well-Known Member
Valjean said:
And which word of God would that be? The Quran? The Gita? The theory of special relativity?

"I believe it. I won't defend my belief. I'm not interested in your opinions on the matter." -- not very fertile soil for discussion.
Click to expand...

That sounds like a very good research project for you. Which one is the word of God?

I have defended my belief. God is Almighty, All-knowing, Holy and Righteous. You are an errant man. Case closed.
 
DavidFirth

DavidFirth

Well-Known Member
It Aint Necessarily So said:
I've lost count of how many times that Christians have told me that the Bible is not a science book. I guess that you're not one of them.

If you're going to use it as a source of scientific fact, you're going to need to make a few more changes to your scientific fund of knowledge:

[1] The bat is a bird (Lev. 11:19, Deut. 14:11, 18);

[2] Some fowls are four-footed (Lev. 11:20-21);

[3] Some creeping insects have four legs. (Lev. 11:22-23);

[4] Hares chew the cud (Lev. 11:6);

[5] Conies chew the cud (Lev. 11:5);

[6] Camels don't divide the hoof (Lev. 11:4);

[7] The earth was formed out of and by means of water (2 Peter 3:5 RSV);

[8] The earth rest on pillars (1 Sam. 2:8);

[9] The earth won't be moved (1Chron. 16:30);

[10] A hare does not divide the hoof (Deut. 14:7);

[11] The rainbow is not as old as rain and sunshine (Gen. 9:13);

[12] A mustard seed is the smallest of all seeds and grows into the greatest of all shrubs (Matt. 13:31-32 RSV);

[13] Turtles have voices (Song of Sol. 2:12);

[14] The earth has ends or edges (Job 37:3);

[15] The earth has four corners (Isa. 11:12, Rev. 7:1);

[16] Some 4-legged animals fly (Lev. 11:21);

[17] The world's language didn't evolve but appeared suddenly (Gen. 11:6-9)

[18] A fetus can understand speech (Luke 1:44)

[19] The moon is a light source like the sun (Gen 1:16)

​
Click to expand...

The Bible has made and continues to make great contributions to science when scientists listen to it. When they don't we end up with wild theories, attempts to search for the truth in darkness. Good luck with that.

None of those quotes confirm your argument that man is an animal in the least. They are, however, a good attempt on your part to sway the argument in a different direction. Tobad it didn't work.
 
It Aint Necessarily So

It Aint Necessarily So

Veteran Member
Premium Member
DavidFirth said:
Not according to the Bible. I am no animal.
Click to expand...

DavidFirth said:
I am especially not interested in your opinion concerning morality.
Click to expand...

DavidFirth said:
A fetus is not a parasite, even according to a secular definition:
Click to expand...

You've managed to isolate yourself on a variety of fronts, which is what happens when you choose to believe on faith and guess wrong. It's also possible to guess right, in which case one's faith based confirmation bias will never have to filter out any evidence.

But when you have to continually do battle with the outside world, it's a pretty good sign that you've guessed wrong. Consider the evolution versus creationism debate. Although I suspect that most people accepting evolution have done so using evidence, it is possible to skip the learning and simply choose to believe evolution as one would creationism. In each case, you would then be fitted with your faith based confirmation bias, an absolute requirement to defend a belief help by faith that is contradicted by evidence. Your confirmation bias will weed all of that out for you.

Notice that if you guess for evolution, the confirmation bias never needs to filter out a single piece of evidence, but that if you guess for creationism, it will be continually be deployed in the defense of your choice.

That's what's happening here. You are repeatedly having to ignore arguments and evidence. On just this page alone, you have ignored Valjean's moral argument, dictionary definitions of parasite, and the scientific definition of an animal. And why? Because you have chosen to believe religious dogma by faith, and it is in conflict with reality.
 
Valjean

Valjean

Veteran Member
Premium Member
DavidFirth said:
These are all ignorant questions to ask a Bible believing Christian. I am in Christ's kingdom. I am redeemed in Christ. I am definitely not an animal.
Click to expand...
Apparently you don't know what a biological kingdom is.

Perhaps you're right. Asking a Bible believing Christian almost any question requiring critical thought or analysis is sometimes an exercise in futility. In your case, you're big on statements, and declarations of faith, but not on defending these declarations, explaining your faith, or addressing the opinions of others.

A fetus is not a parasite, even according to a secular definition:
an unborn or unhatched vertebrate especially after attaining the basic structural plan of its kind; specifically :a developing human from usually two months after conception to birth
Click to expand...
But this definition doesn't exclude the basic understanding of what a parasite is. The basic, secular understanding pf parasitism is of a relationship in which an organism benefits at the expense of another. A foetus benefits in an ongoing relationship with its mother, while contributing nothing.
How are you defining parasite?

You say you're not an animal. How are you defining "animal" that excludes you?
If not an animal, what are you, biologically?
 
Valjean

Valjean

Veteran Member
Premium Member
DavidFirth said:
That sounds like a very good research project for you. Which one is the word of God?

I have defended my belief. God is Almighty, All-knowing, Holy and Righteous. You are an errant man. Case closed.
Click to expand...
No. You have not defended your belief.
DavidFirth said:
The Bible has made and continues to make great contributions to science when scientists listen to it. When they don't we end up with wild theories, attempts to search for the truth in darkness. Good luck with that.
Click to expand...
What are some of these Bible-based contributions?

None of those quotes confirm your argument that man is an animal in the least. They are, however, a good attempt on your part to sway the argument in a different direction. Tobad it didn't work.
Click to expand...
I have not attempted yet to confirm man as animal. I'm asking you how you are defining "animal" in this discussion.
 
Altfish

Altfish

Veteran Member
DavidFirth said:
The Bible has made and continues to make great contributions to science when scientists listen to it. When they don't we end up with wild theories, attempts to search for the truth in darkness. Good luck with that.

None of those quotes confirm your argument that man is an animal in the least. They are, however, a good attempt on your part to sway the argument in a different direction. Tobad it didn't work.
Click to expand...
Now why would the Bible understand that man is an animal? It was written 2000-years ago by less knowledgeable people than we are today.
 
Little Lunch

Little Lunch

Atheist
I'm a bit of a fence sitter on abortion.
I do believe that, as a man, I have no right to tell a woman what to do with her own body.
If men could get pregnant there'd be an abortion clinic at the back of every pub.
But the issue is not black and white.
If, for example, the cut off date for having an abortion was 5 months, what makes the 4 month and 3 week old fetus less human then 5 month and one week old fetus?
I find it annoying when people say that it's just a clump of cells at a certain stage and totally ignore the potential for life, that the process has already started.
I also find it annoying when anti abortionists call those who have abortions murderers.
I acknowledge that for many women it's the hardest choice they will ever make and can be a very sad time in their life.
I also acknowledge that there are plenty of legitimate reasons for abortion and that the life of the mother is always more valuable than an unborn child.
For this reason I would never advocate illegality of abortion.


I think the only attempt at a solution is for society to provide free contraception to anyone of fertile age and free surgery for adults who want a more permanent solution.
All pregnant women should be paid at least twice the welfare rate during their pregnancy.
Adoption should become an easier process without all the red tape.
I feel that more women would not choose abortion if they had more support.
 
DavidFirth

DavidFirth

Well-Known Member
It Aint Necessarily So said:
You've managed to isolate yourself on a variety of fronts, which is what happens when you choose to believe on faith and guess wrong. It's also possible to guess right, in which case one's faith based confirmation bias will never have to filter out any evidence.

But when you have to continually do battle with the outside world, it's a pretty good sign that you've guessed wrong. Consider the evolution versus creationism debate. Although I suspect that most people accepting evolution have done so using evidence, it is possible to skip the learning and simply choose to believe evolution as one would creationism. In each case, you would then be fitted with your faith based confirmation bias, an absolute requirement to defend a belief help by faith that is contradicted by evidence. Your confirmation bias will weed all of that out for you.

Notice that if you guess for evolution, the confirmation bias never needs to filter out a single piece of evidence, but that if you guess for creationism, it will be continually be deployed in the defense of your choice.

That's what's happening here. You are repeatedly having to ignore arguments and evidence. On just this page alone, you have ignored Valjean's moral argument, dictionary definitions of parasite, and the scientific definition of an animal. And why? Because you have chosen to believe religious dogma by faith, and it is in conflict with reality.
Click to expand...

I ignored nothing until after I read it and deemed it worthless.
 
DavidFirth

DavidFirth

Well-Known Member
Valjean said:
Apparently you don't know what a biological kingdom is.

Perhaps you're right. Asking a Bible believing Christian almost any question requiring critical thought or analysis is sometimes an exercise in futility. In your case, you're big on statements, and declarations of faith, but not on defending these declarations, explaining your faith, or addressing the opinions of others.

But this definition doesn't exclude the basic understanding of what a parasite is. The basic, secular understanding pf parasitism is of a relationship in which an organism benefits at the expense of another. A foetus benefits in an ongoing relationship with its mother, while contributing nothing.
How are you defining parasite?

You say you're not an animal. How are you defining "animal" that excludes you?
If not an animal, what are you, biologically?
Click to expand...

You're classification system is the problem. It's wrong.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top