(And That's a Good Thing)

That implies demons are bad, which is problematic.

ROMANS 1

that girl should be beaten severly

It's not a matter of building the future, but of dismantling the past.
They want to hold control over the continual reconstitution of global social memory. To control language.

Attached: 61c139d96f30993bda6ebc21957a7d67de3ae2377e0539a605cf5b49926392a8.jpg (1329x1173, 269.2K)

To be fair, illegal abortions would be a major problem if abortions were illegal on a federal level. I agree that abortion is a diabolical sin, but the government can not and must not take the place of the Holy Spirit. It’s the same reason why Prohibition was a colossal failure; you can not regulate morality.

Vote against abortions out of principle, but don’t vote against abortions in hopes that we will stop this great evil. It will take a mighty work of the Spirit to convict the hearts of abortionists. We must fight this canker worm with gospel weapons of prayer and fasting, or worldly methods of criminalization, which doesn’t even work to begin with.

*not with worldly methods

Not enough, apparently

Not as much of a problem as they are when they're legal.

Okay, the law is no substitute for the Holy Spirit, granted. However, prohibition was only a colossal failure in that it got repealed so quickly. Go look up the precipitous drop in cirrhosis of the liver deaths during probation - literally only half as many people died from alcoholism during prohibition as before and after- and that was during a depression, when drinking would be expected to go up.

Ignoring the propaganda and the fact that the law wasn't 100% perfect, prohibition saved many lives and helped many alcoholics who were able to quit once it couldn't be legally shoved in their face- and remember, the law of course made exceptions for communion.

So, in that vein, making abortion illegal will save many unborn children. There will be evil women who get illegal abortions and risk their lives doing so- but it will be less of a problem than it is now.

I'm not disagreeing that prayer and fasting is necessary too, and more necessary than the law. But the legal change should be pursued as well, for very real benefits. Murder is murder- you're not suggesting that the law against murder isn't worth having on the books, right?

Are you referring to a more recent development, OP, since that article says 2014? Regardless, this is the "morality is a spook so killing people can be good for my ideology hurr durr" argument with a new coat of paint. Disgusting.

Your point is still well met, in that it demonstrates that secular authorities do have the ability to do great good in the area of morality. In the case of abortion, the state is well within its rights to prohibit, as it is an intrinsic evil.

This is basically what the post you're responding to is arguing.

I am always so disgusted by these pro abortion women that scream with joy in the streets over it. Like they are at some pop concert, jumping for joy that they can now legally murder their babies after their 10 minutes of pleasure with Chad and Tyrone.

Can't they be a little somber about it? Why celebrate the death of babies so feverishly? 3000 a day in the USA! That isn't something to celebrate! The more I look at this Babylon we live in the more I am frustrated and angry and even hateful. I wish I weren't also so full of sin after a lifetime of hell and Babylon poison, so that I could be so much more capable of protecting my children from this world.

Stay strong brothers and sisters.

Eh?
Speakeasies were relatively common, especially in larger cities, so it's not like prohibition was wholly effective in getting rid of alcohol. If it worked at all, it was merely a barrier that wasn't too hard to circumvent. What's more, it replaced the legal death of cirrhosis with a rampant criminality that facilitated murder, prostitution and any number of other sinful acts. Which in turn, gave the devil of the FBI more and more power and influence, the final result of which has been seen on the news for the last few years every day.

Trying to save lives in one area, which could have been addressed with less heavy-handed means (and has since then by rather effective anti-alcohol campaigns starting in the 70s, to the point where even ardent drug users are leery about the stuff), has caused so much other evil to erupt that I do not see how it was a good trade.

That all said, aside from my previous post, abortion is a different matter. Alcoholism is a sickness of the soul, but it can be cured with effort and support. These other things, however, the women celebrating death…young people in general and especially young women are taught to be irresponsible by any number of sources. Parents, the media, schools…just to name a few areas. This is why you have women having sex at all, and when they do sex without any protection or a pill.

"But protection and the pill are bad", you may say, and I'm not arguing against them! In fact, you'd do best to not have casual sex at all, for any number of practical reasons before we even get into the spiritual cost! But think about this for a second, it really needs to be established how evil they are. They first-off don't really mind potentially getting sick or dying from tainted sperm directly infusing them. That in and of itself is bad enough, it's really akin to bug-chasing when you think about it. No different than "Typhoid" Mary Mallon, who spread deadly illness and refused to protect other people from her disease; up to 50 people were killed by her carelessness directly, before you consider the people who were infected by her victims.

And then we get to the rich part. Then they don't just end the life as it admixes immediately. No. They wait 9 months, eat more their share of food to keep the child alive and protect it as normal…and then stick a vacuum in its head at birth to suck its brains out for maximum gore, maximum pain (to all involved) and maximum suffering. This is…beyond anything else. This is a pathological and sadistic evil, that is at home with any other activity, in any popular depiction of Hell.

Alcoholism was a sickness of the soul. Abortion is the sickness of society, since requires authorities to not merely enable it, but to promote it as a good when it is objectively the worst option in a basket of bad ones. And for what, when every problem that requires abortion can be solved through less harmful and expensive means? The best case is abstinence to avoid it all, but even any other option to arrest the full horror is ignored despite the low prices of obtaining them, and instead these women would rather murder at term…and be applauded for how brave they were to put themselves and others at risk of death, and their own children to it! How can this be viewed, but only as an ultimate celebration of death and destruction?

I didn't say it was perfect. I said the statistics show that prohibition saved a lot of lives.

As are all laws for the criminals who are willing to risk it. That doesn't negate the beneficial effects of those laws

No. There was suddenly a lot of money in criminality, true, but there would've been anyway with the war on drugs that followed. There's was still far less criminal homicide created (to a huge order) than lives saved from alcohol poisoning and cirrhosis, which was very substantial.

Prostitution and other sinful acts prexisted prohibition. The mob already controlled them. The mob just got more powerful because of the economic benefit from prohibition.

It was a good trade, in terms of lives saved. But I see your point. What is the ideal policy is one that has all the deterrent effect without the black market economic effects: here's the more nuanced answer

-Consumption of alcohol is illegal
-Advertising of alcohol is illegal
-Ownership, buying and selling alcohol is legal

Wait? Buying and selling legal? Yeah, because then the mob can't make any money off it. Further, people might be a bit scared to drink it since you could never sue a company for drinking poisoned/spoiled/bad alcohol (because, after all, you'd have to admit to drinking it which is a crime). People could drink in the privacy of their own homes (like they could in prohibition) but couldn't encourage others to do it by it's publicly sanctioned and illegal nature. You could buy booze, take it home, and there's nothing illegal about that- but end up drunk outside and face stiff jail time.

That's the sort of policy that should exist. Frankly, this policy is ideal for any vice. For example, in prostitution. Selling your body isn't illegal, but someone using your body is. Protects marginalized woman because they can utilize the police and keeps the market to a minimum.

Anyway, don't fall for the liberal education meme saying prohibition was a failure. It was tool used to make the progressive party suckers and just made the establishment angry to find out it worked. So they ditched it despite the social benefit and spun a lie that it never worked by only talking about sensational cases and not public health statistics.

I hope Jesus returns soon.

Attached: ZRMf136.jpg (181x280, 17.21K)

Under alcohol prohibition Jesus' first miracle would have been illegal. Jesus provided the wine to everyone at the feast and left it up to their personal responsibility to take it or not. The Bible is pro alcohol use and anti alcohol abuse. I don't see how a Christian can endorse prohibition unless they follow the Andersonite grape juice meme.

As for prohibition preventing deaths from cirrhosis, etc. Illnesses like that are the just natural consequence of alcohol abuse. They are a built-in penalty that punishes abuse, there is no need to tack additional penalties on to that. The fact that deaths could be reduced does not make prohibition justified. That punishes the many more responsible, moderate drinkers to try to save a handful of reckless, irresponsible drunkards. We could drastically reduce traffic fatalities by banning cars, but that wouldn't make it just.

Thats what people said about abortions in the UK before it was legal. That they were going to take place anyways and it should be done safely and legalizing abortions would lead to less of them. Now theres more abortions then ever.

Some days I can't even see people like this as human. It's all so tiresome.

Attached: Abortions.png (1056x333, 97.01K)

Well, here’s the problem that we are facing. When we are dealing with the secular government, we have to be able to provide empirical proof for a law to be passed. In our case, we have to prove that abortion is murder. Theologically speaking, murder is the unjustified killing of a being which possesses a soul. Hopefully you can see how this is problematic for a secular government. Empirically speaking, the seat of consciousness appears to be linked to neurological development. But in theological terms, animation (that is, the implantation of a soul in a child) is commonly thought to take place at the moment of conception.

What you have to realize is that many of these abortionist are materialists and philosophical naturalists (that is, the rejection of the spiritual realm), so how can we adaquately convince them that abortion is murder at every stage of pregnancy? However, many secular and materialistic people have enough morality to see that causing unneeded suffering is bad, and they link that to a functioning nervous system. So the murder of adults, children, and babies are much more apparent to them because they have a concrete means of determining whether a being is suffering or not.

That is why I said that the Holy Spirit needs to illuminate their hearts and minds to see spiritual truths. The state certainly has the right to criminalize abortions, but as I said earlier, don’t expect that to solve this problem.

Attached: 1361F018-D649-4707-ADEA-46E0F2A971D2.jpeg (960x695, 70.31K)

LaughingGirls.jpg

It refers to the duration of the orgasm, not the whole sexual act.

This is easy.

Life and sentience is incredibly hard to pin down or define. Whatever definition you give that allows for abortions will allow for the killing of mentally disabled or physically disabled unless it's solely a matter of time - which it is- and which is incredibly arbitrary.

The only rational statement of personhood is an individual instance of DNA. Once there is unique DNA, growing on its own, it's a human and purposeful destruction of it is murder. It's cohesive, logical and empirical. That's why life begins at conception. Everything else is arbitrary or logically allows for cruel eugenics programs (which is where the libs would go if they could)

Say what? By that logic, an individual skin cell is a person.

Sigh. No it doesn’t because a sack of cells does not possess a nervous system nor an ability to feel pain. I went over that in my previous post. Besides, libtards are now advocating against “ableism,” so I have no idea how you brought eugenics into the mix.

You say that this was easy, but you totally missed the mark by a mile. Libtards consider the minimalization of pain and suffering as the benchmark for morality. A zygote obviously doesn’t suffer. Killing a retarded person causes suffering to the retard and their loved ones.

Attached: 2A41149A-A225-4623-A35B-383D92DB0C15.png (500x385, 225.57K)

I said "instance" not "cell." An organism with a unique DNA sequence.

Explain how that is relevant. An organism doesn't need to feel pain to be considered life. Again lib-tards making up arbitrary rules just like X many weeks make you "life."

It's completely illogical. The most efficient and certain way to eliminate pain and suffering from the universe is to end all life. I'm not going to pander to such a stupid idea.

If what they mean is first, maximize life, then, second and less importantly, minimize suffering - I can totally get on board but, then, of course, abortion is prohibited.

Okay. Do you know what a zygote is?

You’ll never convince libtards that abortion is murder. You do realize that, right? I say that because you seem totally incapable of seeing things from their perspective.

Not only are you incapable of seeing things from their perspective, you barely engaged in the points that I made. I addressed how libtards define personhood, and that is the development of the nervous system, so yes it IS RELEVANT to the discussion we are dealing with. Did you not notice how I said that killing a retard would cause them and their family members suffering??

Murder doesn’t just affect the victim, but also people close to the victim. Also, physical pain isn’t the only factor when it comes to suffering. Killing a disabled retard who can’t feel pain would still be wrong according to libtards because you violated their free will by forcibly taking away their desire to live. But AGAIN, for the libtard, the seat of human will is the nervous system.

You actually think that the pursuit of eliminating pain and suffering logically leads to the extermination of all life??? So tell me why most libtards don’t think that way? This is what I’m talking about when I say that you can’t see things from their prospective: you come up with these wild, insidious conclusions, when really all they want is to prevent a pregnancy; abortion for them is just a last resort. What makes you think that the average libtard is a genocidal antinatalist? Did it ever occur to you that they are super into social justice because they want to stop suffering (which these policies won’t do, but still)?

Listen: why don’t you do the Christian thing and use gospel weapons to fight the sin of abortion? These people need to be converted first, then they will see the evils of abortion. Right now, you are trying to convince materialists that a clump of cells has moral agency, and that is fu¢king laughable to them.

Yes, and that counts, but it is a far cry from "an individual skin cell is a person"

I understand their perspective; it's just illogical. Libtards believe a lot of illogical and self-contradictory things. It's not that I don't understand them, I'm just not going to pretend their system makes sense.
You're arguing I have to let them set the parameters of the debate- I don't. You say won't convince them- nobody will convince them; they don't believe in objective truth just in using words as a form of power struggle. Only Jesus can change their minds.

If you let them set the parameters as the nervous system, you've already given them a victory over logic- why? Can you talk them into illegalizing abortion once you've conceded this ground? If so, why is abortion still legal. If not, why should I concede this?

You've conflated two ideas here. Suffering to the individual - which is dependent on their biological processes as you just defined it, and suffering caused onlookers (family) by destroying something that may or may not be "alive".
I suffer every time I read the statistics showing how many abortions are done. By the logic that killing a disabled retard is wrong because of the , abortion is wrong because it cause me and other pro-life individuals to suffer.

How can you prove the retard has a "desire to live" if they don't even have a nervous system? It makes no sense.

Because most liberals don't take their thoughts to its logical conclusion. Because suffering is physically unpleasant, and almost invariably they are hedonists (there's nothing else once you're an atheist), they believe suffering is bad. They don't consider it's necessity to life. Hedonism is ultimately an illogical way of life anyway as it will inevitably grow worse since everything physically enjoyable, do to neurotransmitter tolerance over time, becomes chasing the dragon. You must constantly do more extreme and more depraved things to attain a similar high the older you get.

There's liberals celebrating abortion; but that aside… I don't think -they- think their genocidal anti-natalists. I don't think they've thought deeply about their philosophical positions at all.

I preach the gospel on Saturdays, door to door. I'll be headed out soon actually. However, my arguments aren't for the unsaved who are sure of themselves. I make these points for people actually seeking truth through logic who have had the wool pulled over their eyes by liberal education (which I myself have gone through)

Just as you complain about me ignoring your arguments, you are guilty of the same. Your arguments consisted of: "liberals will never be convinced" - not a logical refutation. "you are inacapable of understanding them" - also not a logical refutation, and "your positions are ludicrious" - again, without any logical refutation. Actually explain to me, logically, why the most efficient way to eliminate suffering isn't to end all life- I'm interested in an alternative, because I've never heard it.

But it’s still a cell. And it has the same sentience and will as a skin cell: none.

I’m saying that you and libtards are operating on totally different axioms, so I don’t see how you are even going to have a conversation with them about abortion.

No, no, no. It’s not about “letting them set the standards.” It’s about determining what is the axiomatic common grounds of discussing the abortion debate. As I’ve said numerous times, most libtards are materialists who don’t even believe in a soul, so personhood subsists in the development of the nervous system according to them. Theologically, that’s not really the case. How are you going to prove the existence of a soul to a materialist??

Have you been listening man??? I’ve told you that abortionists are only concerned with neural development. I’ve stated countless times that these people need the Holy Spirit to touch their hearts.

Are you serious? A person can still have a nervous system and not be able to feel pain; rate genetic disorders can cause that. But such an individual can still have a will to live. So I’m trying to figure out if you are either ignorant of the fact that some people can’t feel pain, your reading comprehension is poor, or you are deliberately twisting what I said. I’m leaning towards the first scenario.

nbcnews.com/id/6379795/ns/health-childrens_health/t/rare-disease-makes-girl-unable-feel-pain/

So you would feel the same emotional anguish that the family members would feel if the retard would pass? I’ll admit that point wasn’t the greatest, but you can’t expect me to believe that you would actually grieving like the family is. Are you a Catholic? If so, then your point makes a lot more sense. I don’t believe that unbaptized infants will go to hell, so even though the murder of children is not pleasant for me to think about, I don’t grieve that like I would the death of an adult because that adult is accountable to god for their actions.

Oh, I see. With that being said, we really don’t need to discuss what means would be effective to convince abortionists of the errors of their ways. Just don’t expect the government to fix the abortion problem. And it could potentially make it worse by driving women to seek out illegal and life threatening alternatives. I just want you to know that this is a tricky situation that only God Almighty can fix.

Untrue. Cells react to stimulli, that is a level of sentience. Complicated sentience involves quantity and variance of cells. Or would you like to posit at exactly how many cells and organism becomes sentient?

No, this argument works for purely materialistic grounds if one wants to logically work it out. You haven't refuted any of my points, you just keep restating that they are unconvincing without showing any logical faults. As such, I assume there are none and you're just in denial.

I'm not. Look, the nervous system isn't a consistent, logical, basis for sentience. Later, you posit it's actually "desire to live" and not a nervous system:

So, if the issue is really "desire to live" all organisms have an innate desire to live until they are sufficient complicated to form a narrative that makes them suicidal. Under this model, abortion should be absolutely banned as well. Unless you're requiring that "desire" has a base IQ- and then we're back to euthanizing retards.

Irrelevant to the fact that they are illogical and wrong; to which I have made points in this thread that remain unrefuted.

So you would feel the same emotional anguish that the family members would feel if the retard would pass? I’ll admit that point wasn’t the greatest, but you can’t expect me to believe that you would actually grieving like the family is. Are you a Catholic? If so, then your point makes a lot more sense. I don’t believe that unbaptized infants will go to hell, so even though the murder of children is not pleasant for me to think about, I don’t grieve that like I would the death of an adult because that adult is accountable to god for their actions.
Since matters of scale don't change whether an act is right or wrong, only how right or wrong it is, I consider this a concession on my point that: every act potentially (and probably does) cause suffering to someone. If the ultimate goal is to eliminate suffering, it cannot be done except by eliminating life. While eliminating all current life will cause suffering, it is certainly less than the net suffering that will occur if life continues to expand.

I disagree that minimization of suffering should be a primary goal, but I cannot see another logical conclusion if such a goal is embraced.

I'm still going to argue for it to be illegal and convince anyone on the fence that I can. Libtards wrong opinions aside, abortion is murder. Women should have to risk their life to commit murder- just like any other murderer does.

You’re kidding right?! So I guess that plants are sentient as well, huh? Cells react to stimuli because of biochemical processes.

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sentience

Attached: A9E95A3E-8A1A-4188-B393-52768EC77B54.jpeg (600x900, 72.56K)

So E. coli has a will??? I’ve never heard anything so fu¢king inane in my entire life.

Where do you think sentience comes from?

There is a wasp that, upon reaching its dwelling, leaves its prey at the doorstep and checks the entire hive, then comes out and brings the prey inside. You might think this is a cognitive trait, however, if they prey is moved even slightly, the wasp will move it back to its spot and recheck the whole hive- the activity is done purely on instinct despite how complicated the activity is.

How are you so certain we're not the same? If we're arguing to a purely materialistic perspective, there is no fundamental difference between plants and people, only a matter of scale. Thus, if your concern is preserving sentience and you do not believe in the spiritual, plants are also worth preserving- it's a matter of scale, not of different type.

What do you mean by "will"? Again, I'm arguing to a purely materialistic position.

E. Coli has innate functions that respond to external stimuli. It's will is exhibited through it's functions. Whether it can comprehend it's own will is irrelevant- we were discussing will, not reason or comprehension.

I'm thinking I've realized the real problem. It's you folks that don't understand libtard's materialism.

I argue with an ardent materialist on the regular. These are positions that the -actually- scientific libtards believe. They think the mind is an illusion and all our actions are the product of inputs.

My arguments assume complete materialism and turn it on its head. It's very effective for the rare, logical liberal.

But you're all dealing with liberals that haven't even fleshed out their beliefs. Half of what they believe is hold-overs from cultural Christianity. Their whole world system is an illogical hodge-podge of tradition and tradition-hating simultaneously. There's not point in debating illogical people like that so I don't try- other than to show them where their opinions logically lead if they trim out the contradictory ones.

Interesting. What do you do?

Materialism assumes everything is biochemical. No soul, etc.

If this is so, just as "scientists" like to say there is no real difference between us and apes, there is no real difference between us and any life, even plankton. Sentience is simply a matter of scale and complexity.

Once we've determined that, it's arbitrary to argue something can or can't be killed because of where it falls on the scale.

One could argue murder is wrong because it is wrong for a species to kill itself- but this still prevents abortion

One could argue murder is wrong because it takes life - still prevents abortion.

Of course, materialists can go full nihilist and argue there is nothing intrinsically wrong with murder and, if they go there, then abortion is also fine for them. But you can't hold this wishy-washy middle ground.

The point is that murder and abortion become inextricably tied if there is no "soul" or bright-line rule to differentiate when a zygote becomes human- it is always human, because DNA is the only certain measurement; the scale of organism is arbitrary

The person who I argued longest with eventually granted the personhood of the zygote/fetus because, scientifically, it's a human in an early stage of development.

You can argue some murder is okay, but if it's because the zygote is stupid, that applies to retards

If it's because the zygote cannot independently maintain itself, that applies to anyone needing continuing medical care.

The best argument he made was that, while the zygote/fetus has the right to life, women have the right to physical autonomy. Under this argument, they should be allowed to have the fetus removed intact and exposed and, if it dies, that is unfortunate but it was not their intent- the woman just wanted it out of her body.

I agreed- because this is a trap. Abortions cannot be safely performed without dismembering the fetus in the womb. If the fetus isn't murdered before being removed, the woman's chance of mortality skyrockets and the operation cannot be safely performed. He gave a good-natured concession chuckle when I showed him the actual procedure and how I'd won- but that's because he's an honest, logical individual who was just very misguided.

Basically, you either have to decree murder is fine, nazi eugenics were right, or abortion is wrong. I like narrowing it down to those three options and it's a logically consistent argument that gets you there.

Neat, thank you for expanding. I will remember this.

Are you being sarcastic?

After reviewing your comments, I’m starting to see where you are coming from. I guess you figured that the run of the mill libtard isn’t worth dealing with logically, so the state should put the ban hammer on them. Okay, fair enough. I still don’t think state banning of abortion will be effective, but let’s agree to disagree.

Attached: cca541f3c881b58b635b35e9b7d684355fef1f09c14f0efe87a5b87a7d5bfcc3.png (1081x2124, 1.06M)

Nope. The guy was born to atheist parents, very into science and physics, and ended up Christian. He was always incredibly logical and willing to go where the argument led- I think that's why he ended up Christian, though he's still got a mound of heretical liberal ideas that I try to ween him off on the rare occasions we get a chance to discuss.

Depends on what you mean by "effective." I think total abortions will go down, deaths from attempted abortions will go up, and middle-class and above will just go abroad for abortions (which would be illegal under the FCPA but is almost impossible to enforce if they didn't tell anyone). It won't save anyone who wanted an abortion's soul, but it might allow those who would've been aborted to have their own children who may go on to find God later…

Basically, yeah, if you exchange "isn't worth" with "is impossible to." You can't reason with someone who doesn't believe in reason. I once walked a fem-libtard into this exact corner. All she could say was how I was "mansplaining" to her and that logical debate was a "tool of the patriarchy" and refused to switch her ideas in the face of logical conclusions. There's no arguing with that, literally, and no point on wasting your breath. I usually try to make sure folks agree to the basic rules of logic before engaging now as I wasted serious time before.

Alrighty. I hope I didn’t come off as overly aggressive. I have and had no hard feelings towards you brother. I just misunderstood your intentions.

No hard feelings to you either. Your responses help me see were I'm being ambiguous and need to take smaller steps with my points.

This argument is distilling about 30 hours of conversation I had with a materialist over 3 years to come to understand his position and how being pro-choice along with materialism is untenable -if- you have problems with murder and/or euthanasia

The problem we're going to see from the libtards, is that they're not going to pick "abortion is wrong" they're going to go with euthanasia and eugenics as there position.

Already, killing the elderly by drugging them to death under the guise of "pain management" is legal as "hospice." Soon, they'll push for anyone who desires "hospice" to be allowing into it and that's a small step from forcing people into it who we can't or won't pay to take care of. Designer babies is being pushed for as well, getting rid of the unfit is the next step. Of course, they'll always use different words than the nazis did- and it won't be about "perfecting the race" it'll be about "being compassionate to their suffering" but it's the same damn thing.

I think my prediction of their next move is why I get so angry about the suffering-minimization argument- I know where it will lead socially.

I know my arguments aren't the same you normally see coming from a Christian, and I need to be careful about the steps taken to show my brothers what I saw. I spent 2-3 years arguing nightly with atheists, most were hardcore nihilists, very scientifically knowledgeable, and I really listened to them but held fast to my faith. I understand the liberals very well- to the extent of knowing most of them don't actually care about logic- but there are some real exceptions and those are the folks we have to reach.

Do you not think state banning of murder will be effective? Should we just give up locks because thieves will still find a way to break in? Should we just give up building walls because people could potentially bypass them? Should we just live in a lawless society or something? All of this is equivalent to what you seem to be arguing. It's also how the drug legalizers argue, and it's dead wrong and always will be.

My counter-question is, how would you argue the truth to someone who legitimately wanted to commit genocide against your people, someone who honestly believed you have no soul and was actively on a campaign of killing people? Would you try to convince them through mutual dialogue or would you act to render them powerless and take away all power from them to make them stop?

You’re late on the conversation. I have already made my points, and I don’t feel like arguing about this any longer. End of discussion.

[-]

I don't want your argument, I would like your kind to get out and stay out. Both in here and in general.

Dude, chill.
His point was we should focus more on spreading the gospel than worrying about the laws and as Christians, he's right on that point- but we're also right in the beneficial effect of proper law.

We're talking cross-purposes; he's trying to refocus on what we should do, we're talking ivory tower ideal-state stuff.

Yes but wrong on the point that because something doesn't work 100% efficiently that means we should just give up on it. We are at the point where we have to take away power from these people to make them stop, and pretending to have a rational discussion with evil and agreeing to disagree is functionally equivalent to allowing and permitting that evil. With that in mind, people arguing for that are most likely on the side of promoting it and are very certainly useful idiots in any case.

Right exactly, and that is a big problem. Telling someone not to try to stop the problem because you will never stop every single instance and discouraging that is equal to what the people who started the problem want. Of course, God will end it once for all, that doesn't mean you won't be held responsible for tolerating things you shouldn't have tolerated and doing things you shouldn't have done.

It was his words and the closest point to the center of the whole issue. He wants you to concede and agree to disagree about all things, thereby yielding them the right to abort. But when you're confronted with something of this magnitude, all you can do is fight it, there is no talking. All you can do is work hard to take power away from the group promoting it and force it to be gone by any means available. That responsibility is the thing their job is to keep you from seeing, because pretending to be in a mutual dialogue for appearance' sake is pointless. At the end of the day we don't see eye to eye, and we have to see who will come out on top.

By continuing to pretend it isn't like this, you forfeit by default.

Like I said, I'm not. I'm glad he left because the only purpose here is to show directly as possible why this whole purpose is actually wrong. I didn't want anyone arguing against it.

He wasn't giving up the goal, he was trying to pursue it by other means. He simply believes witnessing is better expenditure of time than legal lobbying.

He wasn't tolerating it or saying it was right, he said the only way to stop them was to get saved. It's an argument of the most efficient way to fix something, not whether we should or shouldn't fix it.

But… that's why my argument is still logically cohesive to the materialist and I didn't have to concede anything. I showed him how, even under a purely materialist view abortion is either proven as wrong or leads to horrendous other views. There was no point in which it was necessary for me to prove the existence of a soul to a materialist, he saw that belatedly so the point was moot.

He basically conceded everything else. His only remaining point at the end was that he thought witnessing/soul winning was more efficient use of time to stop abortion change than lobbying. Of course, I believe we should do both with each brother doing whichever they are more suited for but certainly Christ commanded us to witness, we weren't commanded to lobby… although, arguably, we're witnessing as we lobby.

On a side note, since it was ignored, what do you think of my prediction here:

I couldn't fault you for something like that. I could fault you though for trying to dissuade others from doing what is right by telling them it will never work. Which he repeatedly did until the very end.

There is more than legal lobbying, there is realizing who these people are and stopping them by whatever means you can think of, exposing their corruption, combating their fake narratives, identifying them to others, and resisting them on every issue until the point they are forced to back down.
There are other ways. That's just the most ideal way. But you can't reject something just because it's not ideal, you don't get to renege on your responsibility with an excuse that the solution doesn't work 100% effectively or that it isn't perfectly ideal. That's living in a dream world. The same dream world where everyone is going to stop doing criminal things. So yes, I agree, do pray for people's minds to be changed, but don't stop others from putting more practical barriers in place where they can. You can't quit on the job to try to protect lives where possible just because you came up with some excuse about how it isn't ideal. In the face of real losses in the real world, that doesn't fly. And even worse is when you walk around telling others not to try. That's why I'm pretty sure someone like that is in fact on their side. Because that's exactly the kind of thing they would want to argue.

One can have that argument, but why would you go on about how resisting them "will never work"? That's not saying your way is less efficient, that's actively discouraging your way. Otherwise we can each go our separate ways and you won't get in my way and I won't get in yours and he should have no problem or objection whether I try to re-establish the law of the land in this country. He shouldn't be coming here saying it will never work.

The real point I had made in my previous posts is that you can't do so, and so at the end of the day we simply do not see eye to eye with the progressives, and we will have to see who will come out on top. Of course we will, but only as soon as this charade about "reaching a mutual agreement" is shown to be the fraud that it is. Because it's not possible with people that don't see eye to eye, who won't be convinced by words, and who only want to hold the current status quo in their favor indefinitely by pretending to engage in discussion.

Yeah, and even more importantly, we're living up to actual responsibility as actual lives and people's humanity and dignity are on the line to be won or lost.

I believe they already think that way, they just don't have enough power and precedent to get there… yet. But the less they are fought against, the sooner their vision will be reality. It's the same vision the communist revolutionaries had, the same talmudic judaism that sees all goyim as subhuman. There is no reconciling our beliefs though. I'm sorry for you if you think there is.

As it says in the Talmud in BT Sanhedrin 78a, Killing a terminally ill person is not murder.

Because subconsciously, they know it's wrong and disgusting, but people don't want to believe that they're wrong and disgusting, so they rationalize and rationalize until they've managed to convince themselves that, at least on a conscious level, they've actually somehow done a good thing. Most importantly, they feel an intense desire not to be rejected by society, so they shout to the heavens that they've done something that's okay until people start agreeing with them just to shut them up.

I agree with this point. He was trying to drive a change of behavior and I agree the case was overstated.

I agree with this stance as well. I mean, I argued for a long time. It's finding that nuanced point where we realized what he was trying to convey rather than what he was technically saying - that's why he conceded most of it.

He was given to hyperbole, hopefully he'll reduce that in future. It's a common rhetoric tactic, I dislike it too.

No, we cannot reconcile our beliefs with there's - but many are not fully cognizant of where their beliefs lead. By drawing out of them (not just telling) logical conclusions and trying to get them to explain their ethical rules, I've scared a few. They are a cult of death, but the vast majority of them don't realize it- neither did the idol worshippers of the old testament.

This generation has very odd opinions about shame. A relative of mine who came out as homosexual argued that no one should shame anyone about anything. I asked, not even about murder? You shouldn't be ashamed to commit murder? He of course conceded that and then it became explaining that shame should only be used on things that are actually wrong. He didn't ultimately learn from it though, because he was trying to escape the shame of being homo, which he knew deep inside was wrong.

You feel ashamed for the homo feeling no shame. Shame of you

I come back to check on this thread out of curiosity, and this is what I find? Total rubbish!

So relying on God’s regenerative power is ‘living in a dream world???” It’s like I’m talking to a Deist or something. Try reading the book of Judges before you say something so spiritually asinine.

And just for the record, me pointing out that legal restrictions are inadequate and potentially problematic isn’t the same as “dissuading others.” That is a bullshit victim tactic. From the very beginning of this thread, I said that one could vote against abortion out of principle.

All I tried to point out is that criminalization could make the problem worse. Just because abortions could “officially” go down in some areas of the world doesn’t mean that it will absolutely go down. The women who get successful, illegal abortions aren’t going to report it. You do realize that, right?

Case in point: Texas has an extremely high term pregnancy rate. In fact, theirs is one of the highest in the United States, DESPITE having abstinence only education. Why is that? Because, for the last time, the state cannot force people to act morally. nypost.com/2017/06/06/texas-sees-high-rate-of-teen-births-despite-abstinence-only-sex-ed/

The state exists to execute evildoers and to safeguard the peace of a people. But never forget that it is the truth and power of God that makes a nation holy and prosperous. If the spiritual foundation of a nation is overthrown, laws will only fill up the prisons without addressing the root cause of the problem.

So you can keep worshipping the state as if it is a great sanctifier of its people. It ISN’T.

This point you're just wrong on. All indications and studies I have read on the subject support the proposition that the absolute amount of an activity decreases when it is made illegal. Reporting or not reporting. Your theory has never been shown in reality- whereas pot-smoking in Colorado went up and, more clearly, cirrhosis of liver deaths during prohibition, were halved. People might be drinking illegally, but clearly not as much by the death stats.

>Case in point: Texas has an extremely high term pregnancy rate. In fact, theirs is one of the highest in the United States, DESPITE having abstinence only education. Why is that? Because, for the last time, the state cannot force people to act morally. nypost.com/2017/06/06/texas-sees-high-rate-of-teen-births-despite-abstinence-only-sex-ed/
Non-sequitur. This isn't a law criminalizing something. There are also a myriad of variables besides sexual education which can account for teen pregnancy. This is liberal propaganda besides.

Teen pregnancy in Texas, despite being high, is decreasing even with abstinence only education. The high rate of teen pregnancy occurs predominantly in hispanics and Texas is probably affected more by its proximity to the border than its sexual education system.

I don't agree with the death penalty when you can afford to imprison for life- but I agree with the second part.

No one's worshipping the state. You're just ill-informed as to how statistics work and you have some weird ideas about criminal deterrence that just don't play out in reality.

I agree God is most important but I thought you'd understood our position… you disappointed me.

No it really isn’t. I don’t know what you reading. chron.com/news/health/article/Teen-birth-rates-spiked-in-Texas-after-Planned-11283376.php#item-85307-tbla-13

And the point of abstinence only education is to regulate the moral actions of its young people, which clearly isn’t working.

I never conceded that government intervention was an effective tactic. I only admitted that I originally misunderstood your intentions (that is, you are trying to convince the libtards that if the errors of their ways). I’m mainly pissed off at the other guy who thinks I’m trying to enable abortions because I disagree with the over emphasis on legal intervention. That is neither just nor true.

Good argument. Here is the go to that I've formulated to explain why abortion is wrong to materialists

1. The only logical point at which to define the beginning of human life is conception. All points after this are arbitrary. It is the point at which the DNA fuses to create a new being and starts the autonomous process of cell division that will inevitably lead to a new human being born. This process IS human life, an old person is a human, a young person is a human, they're simply at different developmental stages. A fetus is a very early developmental stage of human life, but it is a stage of human life all the same.

2. Ending that process is murder because you're making the willing decision to end the process of human development.

3. Counterarguments like "but muh miscarriages" don't work because there is an obvious difference between human intervention and a natural process failing. If you know someone is going to have a heart attack and die in the next 30 seconds that doesn't mean you're off the hook if you stab them. You are still morally culpable for your actions, contingent things that might happen are irrelevant. Whether or not there could have been a miscarriage is smokescreen and irrelevant to the argument of whether abortion is moral.

4. By any metric the fetus is NOT part of the mothers body. "My body, my rights" arguments simply don't work. The fetus is a separate being with its own DNA that simply uses the nutrients of the mother to fuel its own growth. Is a tapeworm part of it's hosts body? No it isn't.

5. I sometimes see an argument about if a building was on fire would you save 100 frozen embryos or 1 child. This argument at first seems compelling but there are problems with it. Firstly even if the child is the rational decision to save, that doesn't mean the worth of the embryos are zero. Secondly the process of life has been stopped, those embryos are not developing. They could develop in future if implanted, but if the process isn't in progress then they are no different to unfertilized eggs, they will not develop into humans UNLESS someone intervenes. Thus they are not equivalent to a fertilized egg inside a womb. You can easily change this argument to make it obvious that the fetus does have worth by instead saying there are fetuses in various stages of development in artificial wombs. A fire breaks out, do you save 100 artificial wombs with developing babies or your assistant? This makes the dilemma more clear and I think most people would choose to save the fetuses in that case.

6. The arguments that pro-abortion advocates use often revolve around emotionally charged edge cases like rape. This shows that they on some level understand that abortion as a simple form of contraception is wrong and indefensible, they need to resort to these cases which are a small minority to justify the act. Cases like rape are a true moral dilemma where there are no good options, abortion could be argued to be justifiable in those cases but you cannot use those cases as smokescreen to justify abortion as a whole where 99% of cases are simply women who engaged in consensual sex but do not want a child.

I think these points work decently well to show why abortion is simply wrong, even from a secular perspective.

>No it really isn’t. I don’t know what you reading.chron.com/news/health/article/Teen-birth-rates-spiked-in-Texas-after-Planned-11283376.php#item-85307-tbla-13.
And the point of abstinence only education is to regulate the moral actions of its young people, which clearly isn’t working.

Here is an example of a refutation: This study says teen -births- have gone up since Planned Parenthood was closed. NOT teen -pregnancies- The issue isn't that pregnancies are going up, it's that teen mothers aren't able to procure easy abortions anymore. Careful reading of nuance is important; this doesn't prove your point.

Also, what God teaches is abstinence only. What the heck are you on when you claim to be Christian and are okay with contraceptives? I'm a prottie and only the mainstream liberal churches are the ones okay with that.

You never rebutted my points either. You keep insisting this without any factual points

The principles of the sexual revolution are so deeply embedded in our culture now that to many people the idea of prohibiting casual sex entirely is simply unthinkable. Marriage is now something you leave til your mid 30s if that because why buy the cow when you can get the milk for free?

Don't grant this one. Murder is murder regardless of one's reasons why. First, many rape victims deeply regret aborting the baby created by the event. First, abortion is a very traumatic experience to the mother; second the guilt is very real. Turn the hypothetical around.

Why does she want an abortion?

So, you argument is… everyone needs the Holy Spirit… but teaching what the Holy Spirit teaches is wrong??

Also, you ignored that I totally refuted your point on Texas teen pregnancies. You should at least own up to that.

I can understand your view and it does hold merit, that is why it's a moral dilemma. Think about pregnancies that threaten the life of the mother. In those cases it seems rational that the pregnancy should be terminated, much like when the life of siamese twins is at risk usually the less viable twin is essentially killed to preserve the life of the healthier twin. It's not an optimal solution but there are no real optimal solutions in these scenarios. It's either let one die or both.

With that in mind, personally I think forcing a woman to carry a rape baby to term poses enough of a detriment to her mental health and wellbeing that in those cases abortion is justified. Like I said, I can see your view and I understand that it's perfectly rational as well if you're going hardline on the fetus having full rights of personhood. But to me the idea of making women who were raped carry the pregnancies is repugnant enough to justify even a heinous act like abortion.

I think on these sorts of issues both our views are completely justified, it's simply a matter of opinion. What we can agree on is that abortion for contraception is never justified and a great moral crime.

This is a different issue and it falls under self-defense. I agree that a mother has a right to defend her life if the baby is killing her. Entirely different than the rape issue.

This isn't consistent. Having a horrible thing happen to you is not a free pass to harm an innocent.

If I get raped, should I get to commit one murder for free? Should people who get mugged have a right to one DUI? It doesn't work that way. If you believe abortion is murder, you have to be consistent.

We're Christians here, God didn't say "thou shalt not murder… unless you were raped"

If you don't think abortion is murder, we should talk about that. If you do think abortion is murder, and you're a Christian, you can't condone rape victims being allowed to have abortions.

In the book of the Acts of the Apostles in chapter 13 speaks of a sorcerer named Elymas who called himself "Bar-jesus" (meaning "Son of Jesus").

"Bar-jesus" was the "mask of moral virtue" that Elymas wore to influence and control the deputy in Paphos.

Likewise, the so-called "woman's right to choose her own pregnancy" has been a "mask of moral virtue" to influence the governing authorities for the murder of unborn children.

What is the real intent? A woman's right, or to continue unimpeded the child blood sacrifices world-wide?

Agree to disagree then. I fully admit my response is emotional, but in this case my compassion for the woman in that situation is stronger than my desire to adhere to moral absolutes. I can't imagine ever looking a rape victim in the eye and telling her that sorry, she has to give birth to her rapists child. I won't agree to that, even if it is contradictory and irrational.

A spike in teen pregnancies are still bad, regardless of the alternatives being worse. While it is true that teen pregnancy rates did drop in Texas, their rates are dropping at a lower rate than states that teach comprehensive sex education. An increase in teen births is nothing to celebrate. I’d rather them use birth control (gasp!) than get pregnant. They are already sinning by having premarital sex, but at least they won’t be able to bring an unfortunate child into the world that they are not ready to handle. Fornication is worse than masturbation because it involves more persons in the act. Likewise, having a child outside of marriage and at a young age is doing a grave disservice to the child. Moral theology dictates that the child must not be killed, but let’s not forget the problems that teen motherhood causes to a child. Imagine a child raising a child; it’s ludicrious. In most cases, the parents are stuck with raising the child early on, putting a bigger burden on the aged parents. It’s more expedient to just use a condom. I know that wasting semen is bad, but having an ill prepared child is even worse.

Meant to say teen births, not pregnancies.

There is no such thing as wrongful life to a Christian. Those kids, even from teen moms, have the opportunity to accept Christ and live eternally.

You would take that from them? Contraception perverts the sex act into something hedonistic and twisted. I'd rather teens get pregnant than pervert themselves and stray even further from the Lord.

Best, of course, would be to find God and marry young.

Your "feelings" are stronger than your love of God? Because God is moral absolutes. Do you understand what you're saying?

This sounds like luke-warm Christianity right here.

Yeah, that's also why I sometimes go around trying to expose the wrongful views that are getting people killed. It's these thought processes and narratives that justify the act such as from the guy that was in here that ought to be disregarded.

Love of God is a feeling, so their feelings must be just as strong as their love of God or less. The feelings can be just as strong but no better and God shouldn't be so jealous. Jealously is not godly.

This is exactly the point we need to make here. Right now people are making special pleading to unusual cases in order to justify the precedent of slaying the child, but they deliberately ignore the direct, immediate consequence (or even want it) which is that now the door is open to all abortion because now the foot is in the door. It's these foot-in-the-door cases that have to be identified and slammed shut, because that's their "angle" they are trying to push.

For instance in your example, the "foot in the door" is the extreme example would be the guy who is about to die from a heart attack. If it's ok to "mercy kill" someone in some kinds of situations, then it no longer becomes an absolute prerogative not to kill a helpless, unconscious human being because now you have an exception. And with that, the door is open to wiggle the definitions further and further of what is allowable— when the correct response is to see how the other side are looking to put the foot in the door because they want all lives to be devalued and so they look for the special cases to get inside. Once they're in, they can justify any abortion because the cat is now out of the bag.

We all know it's evil to mutilate a living person with pliers, to melt a living person with acid or any other kind of abortion technique. The fact that someone wants to argue why it might be acceptable because of some extenuating circumstance ought to alarm and terrify us and queue us that the person arguing for it is deeply disturbed. They need to be looked at and examined.

Then why would you let people mutilate other people with a tool called "the law" and similar writings? They're no different than writing malicious code on a computer designed toutiliate people's lives.

No, God is not a biochemical reaction in your brain. Agape (love of God) is an objective thing- the Apostle Paul tells us it's attributes. It's something you understand in your head, not in your heart

Huh? How does that apply to what he posted?

Attached: Untitled.jpg (146x163, 12.26K)

As if that wasn’t already their motive in the first place. Teens have sex because they are hedonistic.

Wait a second. What do you mean by them? Life begins at conception, not the moment spent is produced. This is why I said that contraceptives are better than abortions because wasting seed is simply an act that reveals a perversity of the sex act, whereas abortion is actual murder.

You would prefer teens to have children? Do you realize how insane that sounds?? Teen pregnancy is risk with problems that a condom could easily solve.

webmd.com/baby/teen-pregnancy-medical-risks-and-realities

*sperm is produced

Your logic eludes me; because they're going to engage in one perversion, we should let them engage in two? Huh? Two wrongs don't make a right. Premarital sex is bad, premarital sex with contraception is worse. You've been modernized.

Abortion is murder. Contraception is not murder, but it's still evil. Yes, I would prefer people see the very real consequences of their short-sighted desire for sex and be obligated to care for the children therefrom.

Pic Related

Attached: youaremad.jpg (1000x1000, 166.94K)

...

Honestly. Women do deserve beatings