Rationalia Abortion Thread (A New Start)

[Hermit]

It's not just domestic terrorism. It's Christian terrorism as well. Read is a Christian and and referred to himself as a "warrior for the babies" at his hearing. He is not the only Christian warrior for the babies either. I see no mass protests by Christians about it, so it seems reasonable to conclude that all Christians support Christian terrorism. That's just what Christians are like.

[Forty Two]

That sounds reasonable.

[Seth]

It's not just domestic terrorism. It's Christian terrorism as well. Read is a Christian and and referred to himself as a "warrior for the babies" at his hearing. He is not the only Christian warrior for the babies either. I see no mass protests by Christians about it, so it seems reasonable to conclude that all Christians support Christian terrorism. That's just what Christians are like.

Except nowhere in Christian theology or doctrine does Christ call upon believers to kill abortionists or anyone else. That cannot be said of Islam.

However, one might reasonably say that this individual, albeit deranged, was motivated by his interpretation of his own Christian beliefs.

Then again, there's one of him and a billion Muslims, each of whom is commanded by Mohammed and Allah to slay and enslave infidels at every opportunity.

[Brian Peacock]

Except nowhere in Christian theology or doctrine does Christ call upon believers to kill abortionists or anyone else.

We've talked about this before Seth. All the Mosaic laws still apply to Christians and Christ was a fulfilment of OT prophecies just as he had a self-declared role to fulfil God's law. Those laws call for the death of those who reject the verdicts or judgements of priests, the death of witches, the death of homosexuals, the death of fortune tellers, death for striking your father, death for cursing your parents, death for adultery, death for women who have sex out of wedlock and death for women who are not virgins on their wedding night, death for those who follow unclean religions, death for those who make offerings to false gods including killing everyone in a community, and its livestock, if some among it make offerings to false gods, death for non-believers and those who do not seek and/or accept the God of Israel, death to false prophets, death for blasphemy, and death for working on the Sabbath.

However, one might reasonably say that this individual, albeit deranged, was motivated by his interpretation of his own Christian beliefs.

It is a part of mainstream Christian doctrine to hold that all individuals belong to God, and that even the unborn are individuals who fall under God's protections and God's law. It's not a radical or unusual position for Christian to maintain that abortion is wrong for this reason, and thus an interpretation of Christianity that holds that abortion and abortionists to account by God's law is not a huge step away from the mainstream. That this individual thinks that God authorised his action is essentially no different to a more moderately-minded Christian maintaining that God authorises the banning of abortion services. The interpretation is always in the eye of the interpreter. I wonder how many apparently moderately-minded mainstream Christians would welcome what this man has done in their name, even if they are not prepared to go that far themselves. The Christian rhetoric around the abortion issue is pretty intense and in some cases aggressive after all.

Then again, there's one of him and a billion Muslims, each of whom is commanded by Mohammed and Allah to slay and enslave infidels at every opportunity.

Islam has no strictures against birth control.

[Hermit]

It's not just domestic terrorism. It's Christian terrorism as well. Read is a Christian and and referred to himself as a "warrior for the babies" at his hearing. He is not the only Christian warrior for the babies either. I see no mass protests by Christians about it, so it seems reasonable to conclude that all Christians support Christian terrorism. That's just what Christians are like.

Except nowhere in Christian theology or doctrine does Christ call upon believers to kill abortionists or anyone else.

"But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me." [Luke 19:27]

You keep saying "quotemine", but never expanded on that yet.

[Seth]

It's not just domestic terrorism. It's Christian terrorism as well. Read is a Christian and and referred to himself as a "warrior for the babies" at his hearing. He is not the only Christian warrior for the babies either. I see no mass protests by Christians about it, so it seems reasonable to conclude that all Christians support Christian terrorism. That's just what Christians are like.

Except nowhere in Christian theology or doctrine does Christ call upon believers to kill abortionists or anyone else.

"But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me." [Luke 19:27]

You keep saying "quotemine", but never expanded on that yet.

I've expanded on it expansively, many times. You just choose to ignore the context entirely because it's your favorite anti-Christian strawman.

[Seth]

Except nowhere in Christian theology or doctrine does Christ call upon believers to kill abortionists or anyone else.

We've talked about this before Seth.

Yes, we have and you're STILL wrong.

All the Mosaic laws still apply to Christians and Christ was a fulfilment of OT prophecies just as he had a self-declared role to fulfil God's law.

Nope. Christ changed the rules with his sacrifice, which was the entire point of his life and death. When he died and was resurrected (according to Christianity) all those old laws were repealed and new ones put in place.

Those laws call for the death of those who reject the verdicts or judgements of priests, the death of witches, the death of homosexuals, the death of fortune tellers, death for striking your father, death for cursing your parents, death for adultery, death for women who have sex out of wedlock and death for women who are not virgins on their wedding night, death for those who follow unclean religions, death for those who make offerings to false gods including killing everyone in a community, and its livestock, if some among it make offerings to false gods, death for non-believers and those who do not seek and/or accept the God of Israel, death to false prophets, death for blasphemy, and death for working on the Sabbath.

Nope.

However, one might reasonably say that this individual, albeit deranged, was motivated by his interpretation of his own Christian beliefs.

It is a part of mainstream Christian doctrine to hold that all individuals belong to God,

Well, technically EVERYTHING belongs to God since God created everything. However, it's Christian doctrine that all individuals may obtain salvation and redemption from sin by accepting Jesus Christ as their personal Savior and being baptized in his name. Or they may choose not to do so.

and that even the unborn are individuals who fall under God's protections and God's law.

Well, God's dominion perhaps.

It's not a radical or unusual position for Christian to maintain that abortion is wrong for this reason,

Yes, and...???

and thus an interpretation of Christianity that holds that abortion and abortionists to account by God's law is not a huge step away from the mainstream.

Except for that small thing that Jesus said, "Judge not lest ye be judged" and "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone." If you can't understand those clear statements as reserving to God the authority to judge and dispense justice then you need to re-read the New Testament more carefully.

That this individual thinks that God authorised his action is essentially no different to a more moderately-minded Christian maintaining that God authorises the banning of abortion services.

It's an enormous difference. Engaging in political opposition to abortion with the intent of making it unlawful to kill living human beings in utero for any reason or no reason at all is entirely different from killing abortionists.

The interpretation is always in the eye of the interpreter.

Complete nonsense. "Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's, render unto God that which is God's." Political or philosophical opposition to abortion is, well, a political and philosophical belief, not an authorization from God to kill abortionists.

I wonder how many apparently moderately-minded mainstream Christians would welcome what this man has done in their name, even if they are not prepared to go that far themselves.

You're free to go right on wondering.

The Christian rhetoric around the abortion issue is pretty intense and in some cases aggressive after all.

Well, if those abortionists were proposing to retroactively abort your children, your wife and you, I suppose your rhetoric might be a bit "intense" as well.

If you believe that abortion is the deliberate and intentional murder of a living human being, which is not an exclusively Christian position, then why shouldn't the rhetoric be "pretty intense?"

Then again, there's one of him and a billion Muslims, each of whom is commanded by Mohammed and Allah to slay and enslave infidels at every opportunity.

Islam has no strictures against birth control.

Really? How about this:

As to whether abortion is a form of killing a human, the Qur'an does not make any explicit statements. Only Surah 17:31 warns believers in general: “Kill not your children for fear of want. We shall provide sustenance for them as well as for you. Verily the killing of them is a great sin.”

Even Islamic scholars are divided on that particular point, so your statement is factually untrue.

[Hermit]

It's not just domestic terrorism. It's Christian terrorism as well. Read is a Christian and and referred to himself as a "warrior for the babies" at his hearing. He is not the only Christian warrior for the babies either. I see no mass protests by Christians about it, so it seems reasonable to conclude that all Christians support Christian terrorism. That's just what Christians are like.

Except nowhere in Christian theology or doctrine does Christ call upon believers to kill abortionists or anyone else.

"But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me." [Luke 19:27]

You keep saying "quotemine", but never expanded on that yet.

I've expanded on it expansively, many times. You just choose to ignore the context entirely because it's your favorite anti-Christian strawman.

You have copypasted an article purporting that Luke 19:27 has been misinterpreted. It was crap, of course, but that is beside the point. Christians have seized upon that very verse with great enthusiasm and fervour to justify their murders for many centuries, and evidently still do.

[Hermit]

Islam has no strictures against birth control.

Really? How about this:

As to whether abortion is a form of killing a human, the Qur'an does not make any explicit statements. Only Surah 17:31 warns believers in general: “Kill not your children for fear of want. We shall provide sustenance for them as well as for you. Verily the killing of them is a great sin.”

You somehow forgot to quote the comment immediately following Surah 17:31 by the author of the article you linked to. It goes like this:

This Qur'anic reference is to killing already born children--usually girls. The text was condemning this custom. The Arabic word for killing used in this text "means not only slaying with a weapon, blow or poison, but also humiliating or degrading or depriving children of proper upbringing and education." The text doesn't explicitly address the abortion and therefore doesn't close the argument on it.

So, definitely not a pronouncement on abortion either way. But I'm quite used to you using that which is not said to mean what you want it to mean. You're very consistent there.

[Brian Peacock]

[Brian Peacock]

It's not just domestic terrorism. It's Christian terrorism as well. Read is a Christian and and referred to himself as a "warrior for the babies" at his hearing. He is not the only Christian warrior for the babies either. I see no mass protests by Christians about it, so it seems reasonable to conclude that all Christians support Christian terrorism. That's just what Christians are like.

Except nowhere in Christian theology or doctrine does Christ call upon believers to kill abortionists or anyone else.

"But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me." [Luke 19:27]

You keep saying "quotemine", but never expanded on that yet.

I've expanded on it expansively, many times. You just choose to ignore the context entirely because it's your favorite anti-Christian strawman.

Oh pul-lease. All you've ever done is play the No True Chritian card. To wit...

All the Mosaic laws still apply to Christians and Christ was a fulfilment of OT prophecies just as he had a self-declared role to fulfil God's law.

Nope. Christ changed the rules with his sacrifice, which was the entire point of his life and death. When he died and was resurrected (according to Christianity) all those old laws were repealed and new ones put in place.

Please demonstrate how the 10 commandments and the Mosaic laws don't apply to Christians. Citations would be useful.

[Seth]

Islam has no strictures against birth control.

Really? How about this:

As to whether abortion is a form of killing a human, the Qur'an does not make any explicit statements. Only Surah 17:31 warns believers in general: “Kill not your children for fear of want. We shall provide sustenance for them as well as for you. Verily the killing of them is a great sin.”

You somehow forgot to quote the comment immediately following Surah 17:31 by the author of the article you linked to. It goes like this:

This Qur'anic reference is to killing already born children--usually girls. The text was condemning this custom. The Arabic word for killing used in this text "means not only slaying with a weapon, blow or poison, but also humiliating or degrading or depriving children of proper upbringing and education." The text doesn't explicitly address the abortion and therefore doesn't close the argument on it.

So, definitely not a pronouncement on abortion either way. But I'm quite used to you using that which is not said to mean what you want it to mean. You're very consistent there.

The point is that even within Islam there is substantial dispute about abortion, which means it is not true that "Islam has no strictures against birth control" at least with respect to abortion as birth control.

I don't know what Islam says about contraceptives.

[Seth]

Duplicate post

[Seth]

I've expanded on it expansively, many times. You just choose to ignore the context entirely because it's your favorite anti-Christian strawman.

Oh pul-lease. All you've ever done is play the No True Chritian card. To wit...

Sorry Brian, but you're simply wrong here.

Please demonstrate how the 10 commandments and the Mosaic laws don't apply to Christians. Citations would be useful.

To wit: The New Testament. Go read it and then try to understand it's import and purpose. Maybe Christ will help you understand it if you ask him nicely. Then again, maybe not.

As to the "No True Christian" card, a "No True Scotsman" fallacy is only a fallacy if it is not true that a Scotsman is not a Scotsman if he puts sugar on his oatmeal. The premise stated assumes that there are in fact some "true Scotsmen" who do put sugar on their oatmeal and therefore the claim that no true Scotsman would do so is a fallacious claim. But, if it is factually true that true Scotsmen do not put sugar on their oatmeal, then it's not a fallacy to say so, it's a fact.

The problem of course is that the No True Scotsman fallacy is stated in such a way as to make the fundamental premises true, which is to say that Angus is a Scotsman and does in fact put sugar on his oatmeal.

This fallacy is a form of circular argument, with an existing belief being assumed to be true in order to dismiss any apparent counter-examples to it. The existing belief thus becomes unfalsifiable.

But it's only a circular argument and therefore a fallacy if the existing belief is not in fact true, but is only assumed to be true as a premise of the syllogism.

One is either a Scotsman or one is not a Scotsman, and the No True Scotsman fallacy falsely presumes that what one does (putting sugar on one's oatmeal) cannot change that fact. That Angus, a Scotsman does put sugar on his oatmeal is a factual premise. The fallacy is in saying that Angus is not a "true" Scotsman if he does so based on the faulty premise that what one does cannot change one's status as a Scotsman. However, if for some reason it is true that putting sugar on your oatmeal as a Scotsman divests you of the status of being a Scotsman then the claim is NOT a fallacy.

‘No True Scotsman’ Fallacy
Explanation

The no true scotsman fallacy is a way of reinterpreting evidence in order to prevent the refutation of one’s position. Proposed counter-examples to a theory are dismissed as irrelevant solely because they are counter-examples, but purportedly because they are not what the theory is about.
Example

The No True Scotsman fallacy involves discounting evidence that would refute a proposition, concluding that it hasn’t been falsified when in fact it has.

If Angus, a Glaswegian, who puts sugar on his porridge, is proposed as a counter-example to the claim “No Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge”, the ‘No true Scotsman’ fallacy would run as follows:

(1) Angus puts sugar on his porridge.
(2) No (true) Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge.
Therefore:
(3) Angus is not a (true) Scotsman.
Therefore:
(4) Angus is not a counter-example to the claim that no Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge.

This fallacy is a form of circular argument, with an existing belief being assumed to be true in order to dismiss any apparent counter-examples to it. The existing belief thus becomes unfalsifiable.
Real-World Examples

An argument similar to this is often arises when people attempt to define religious groups. In some Christian groups, for example, there is an idea that faith is permanent, that once one becomes a Christian one cannot fall away. Apparent counter-examples to this idea, people who appear to have faith but subsequently lose it, are written off using the ‘No True Scotsman’ fallacy: they didn’t really have faith, they weren’t true Christians. The claim that faith cannot be lost is thus preserved from refutation. Given such an approach, this claim is unfalsifiable, there is no possible refutation of it.
Source

For this "real world example" to be valid it must first be true that faith is permanent. However, this premise is itself flawed because it is without foundation as to the permanence of faith, which is a claim, not a fact. Regardless of what some individual may claim about the permanence or impermanence of faith in his own opinion, that cannot be construed to be a factual statement of the truth of the permanence of faith. Therefore, dismissing someone who appears to have lost faith as not being a true Christian is fallacious not because it's an unfalsifable claim, but rather it's fallacious because the first premise, the claim that faith is permanent, is itself unsubstantiated and therefore invalid.

The anti-religious argument seen above is a devious iteration of the Atheist's Fallacy in that it presumes the validity of the premises regarding Christian faith involved without evidence that those premises are indeed valid. Thus, in this case the "No True Christian" fallacy is itself a fallacy because it relies upon circular reasoning for it's fundamental validity.

Now, we may disagree as to what Christ says about being a Christian, as many others do, but if I cannot say that one is not a Christian if one doesn't act like a Christian and obey the dictates of Christ, then you cannot say that those who claim to be Christians who do bad things are in fact Christians. Rather they are just persons who do bad things who happen to identify themselves as Christians, the bad acts being unrelated to their status or non-status as Christians.

That's the case with the Planned Parenthood shooter in Colorado Springs. He can claim to be a Christian "warrior" against abortion all he likes, but it's just a claim he makes that applies only to him and his opinions. It neither makes him a Christian nor does it define Christian beliefs and practices or other Christians and their behaviors. This is the actual intent of the Atheist religious anti-theist argument cited above, to engage in a guilt by association fallacy by claiming that because one person claiming to be a Christian and acting badly based on what he claims are Christian beliefs and principles that this defines all Christians and all of Christianity as actually holding or supporting those beliefs and practices without any actual evidence that this is factually true.

Christianity is like a private club. It has admission requirements, rules and regulations. You are only a member of that private club if you meet the admission requirements and obey the rules and regulations. If you fail or refuse to do so, then according to those rules and regulations you cease to be a member of that club.

In the same way that the No True Scotsman fallacy is not a fallacy if Angus is not actually a Scotsman but rather is a Londoner falsely claiming to be a Scotsman, that fallacy does not apply to those who are not Christians even if they claim to be Christians while engaging in un-Christian behavior.

In the broader sense, the No True Scotsman fallacy is often inappropriately cited in conjunction with Christianity, as you have done in this case, to attempt to bolster the fallacious argument that those who identify as Christians who do bad things represent the true beliefs and behaviors of all Christians and that therefore all of Christianity is morally equal to those who do bad things while self-identifying as Christians.

Not only is this a clear guilt by association fallacy, it's also a fallacy of composition because it assumes that because the parts of the whole A and B have characteristic X this means that all parts of the whole also have characteristic X.[/quote]

[Brian Peacock]

... [T]hat fallacy [no true Scotsman] does not apply to those who are not Christians even if they claim to be Christians while engaging in un-Christian behavior.

Do you see your fundamental error here?

The thing with Mr Dear is that he can (presumably) rely on a fundamental interpretation of Christian doctrine to justify his acts of terror and violence, and in that he gets to declare the non-fundamentalists, non-Biblical-literalists as the true untrue Christians. Many many Christians would hold that the Bible is unerring, that God's law supersedes all human law, and that divine command is not only the foundation of all ethics but places an obligation on all Christians (and on all others too). The difference between the fundamentalist and the more moderately-minded believer is that the fundamentalists embraces these ideas more fully, more deeply, more fundamentally, and then acts on them. In a way the fundamentalist Christian is more Christian Christian that the moderate, an Uber Christian if you will. However, fundamentalism's self-righteous self-certainty exposes the ethical vacuum at the heart of all religious dogmas, that being the abrogation of personal responsibility for one's acts in favour of the circular "I am obliged to follow the orders I am obliged to follow" excuse. Christian objections to abortion fall into this category of excuses whenever the law or will of God is used in justification or whenever a Christian defers their moral reasoning to a religious authority.