What's your most controversial opinion?

[Goodspeed]

Halb stats???

[chris1089]

Noetic effect of sin:
https://www.ligonier.org/learn/devotion ... fects-sin/

You are again speaking to me in the language of drivel. I'm asking you to explain in the common language. Feel free to elaborate in your own words (non-drivel, please).
I guess it's not surprising that you are unable or unwilling to explore or attempt to understand perspectives other than the "objective truth" you've been taught. Religion's bread and butter.

I suppose I'll attribute our difference of opinion to the "noetic effects of brainwashing". Surely it is impossible that this is simply a difference of perspective. No, you must be wrong. And your wrongness must be caused by your religious tendencies.

I'm saying they are logically incompatible. It's not about opinion.

It is, except you seem to think your opinion is the only logically valid one. Please explain, then, why it is illogical to think abortion is okay due to the combination of the two factors I mentioned.

On a bunch of cells, it's not about or else, it's just scientific consensus in modern biology that human life begins at conception. That's the only place that isn't arbitrary because of the new DNA.

I have made no statements about the beginning of human life. That to me isn't relevant to the discussion, because no matter how you define the bunch of cells I don't place inherent value in them. If you want to take that out of context and claim I don't place inherent value in human life, you would technically be correct so go ahead.
I understand that you draw the line at conception. I just don't agree.

If you claim it's not black and white (not sure what you mean by that) but rather just your opinion, what makes either one of us correct?

Neither of us is definitively correct. We have a difference of opinion. Is that really so foreign to you?

Summed up simply, the noetic effect of sin teaches that the human mind and reasoning has been corrupted in the fall. It's belief in this doctrine that led away from trying to deduce what is true and led to the scientific method. They believed that they could be deceived so they needed to test theories against reality. So you can thank Christian theology for the scientific method if you like.

You are saying that because I read the Bible and live by it I am brainwashed? Or was Aldous Huxley speaking about the real world in brave new world? On what basis do you do anything? You act in the world as though objective truth exists and that you know things objectively yet your position seems to be denying it?

The way you argued at the beginning made me understand that it was not a multiplicity of factors that made abortion right or wrong at various stages. The only way you can hold both factors together is if neither is sufficient to make killing wrong on their own, but when both factors are true it becomes wrong. However that didn't seem to be what you were saying.

Your argument results in you concluding that there isn't inherent value in human life. However I am sure that that is not the way you live. I believe this is because although your mind is corrupted, like all humans, you are still made in God's image which results in this behaviour.

Is your statement that neither of us are definitively correct definitively correct?

[Goodspeed]

Summed up simply, the noetic effect of sin teaches that the human mind and reasoning has been corrupted in the fall. It's belief in this doctrine that led away from trying to deduce what is true and led to the scientific method. They believed that they could be deceived so they needed to test theories against reality. So you can thank Christian theology for the scientific method if you like.

So you're saying that the human mind being corrupted led to it questioning things, and led to a formalized method to learn from observation? Your implication is that questioning things, by extension curiosity itself, is bad. This is exactly what I mean when I say religion is an anti-intellectual movement. This way of thinking is, in my opinion, very destructive to children's intellectual development.

This quote in particular is mind-boggling to me:

It's belief in this doctrine that led away from trying to deduce what is true and led to the scientific method.

The purpose of the scientific method is exactly that.

You are saying that because I read the Bible and live by it I am brainwashed?

I was being sarcastic, in an attempt to draw a parallel with what you said about sin apparently corrupting my mind.

On what basis do you do anything? You act in the world as though objective truth exists and that you know things objectively yet your position seems to be denying it?

I deny that the discussion about abortion is one about objective truth. It's subjective in nature. Also, while objective truth surely exists, I don't know anything for certain except that I exist and don't think it's possible to be certain about anything other than that. But we can come very close to certainty, of course, through use of the scientific method.

The way you argued at the beginning made me understand that it was not a multiplicity of factors that made abortion right or wrong at various stages. The only way you can hold both factors together is if neither is sufficient to make killing wrong on their own, but when both factors are true it becomes wrong. However that didn't seem to be what you were saying.

It's rather the opposite. Neither factor alone makes killing right, but both combined make it right.

Your argument results in you concluding that there isn't inherent value in human life. However I am sure that that is not the way you live.

By your definition of human life that is demonstrably the way I live because I support abortion. Typically human life and consciousness go together, but in this "edge case" they do not.

I believe this is because although your mind is corrupted, like all humans, you are still made in God's image which results in this behaviour.

The behavior of supporting abortion?

Is your statement that neither of us are definitively correct definitively correct?

Right, religious people are notoriously unable to accept their own subjectivity. If you want to pretend your argument is an objective truth, that would certainly be in character. I obviously don't see it that way.

[chris1089]

Finally replied on the computer so I can do some better formatting.

Summed up simply, the noetic effect of sin teaches that the human mind and reasoning has been corrupted in the fall. It's belief in this doctrine that led away from trying to deduce what is true and led to the scientific method. They believed that they could be deceived so they needed to test theories against reality. So you can thank Christian theology for the scientific method if you like.

So you're saying that the human mind being corrupted led to it questioning things, and led to a formalized method to learn from observation? Your implication is that questioning things, by extension curiosity itself, is bad. This is exactly what I mean when I say religion is an anti-intellectual movement. This way of thinking is, in my opinion, very destructive to children's intellectual development.

I think you completely misunderstand me. I was merely pointing out the reason the scientific method was developed because I thought you would find it interesting. I didn't intend to imply anything about it. I actually agree with the underpinning theology and it's application in this area. I think questioning things and testing them is a good thing and that curiosity is essential in a child's development. Sorry if my language implied that I thought the scientific method was a negative thing.

This quote in particular is mind-boggling to me:

It's belief in this doctrine that led away from trying to deduce what is true and led to the scientific method.

The purpose of the scientific method is exactly that.

Glad we agree on this.

On what basis do you do anything? You act in the world as though objective truth exists and that you know things objectively yet your position seems to be denying it?

I deny that the discussion about abortion is one about objective truth. It's subjective in nature. Also, while objective truth surely exists, I don't know anything for certain except that I exist and don't think it's possible to be certain about anything other than that. But we can come very close to certainty, of course, through use of the scientific method.

We disagree. I think life has objective intrinsic value and you don't. I think that the baby has human life and you don't. Therefore I think that the baby has intrinsic value and you don't.

The way you argued at the beginning made me understand that it was not a multiplicity of factors that made abortion right or wrong at various stages. The only way you can hold both factors together is if neither is sufficient to make killing wrong on their own, but when both factors are true it becomes wrong. However that didn't seem to be what you were saying.

It's rather the opposite. Neither factor alone makes killing right, but both combined make it right.

I think you are agreeing with me here, except I am framing it in terms of when abortion is not wrong and you are framing it in terms of when abortion is permissible.You are arguing that both consciousness and location out of the mother are necessary for abortion to be wrong, but that either factor on it's own doesn't make it wrong. Am I correct?

Your argument results in you concluding that there isn't inherent value in human life. However I am sure that that is not the way you live.

By your definition of human life that is demonstrably the way I live because I support abortion. Typically human life and consciousness go together, but in this "edge case" they do not.

I'm not saying you always live this way, but that in general you live as if human life has intrinsic value.

I believe this is because although your mind is corrupted, like all humans, you are still made in God's image which results in this behaviour.

The behavior of supporting abortion?

Sorry I should be more explicit even if it's extra work! I mean the kind of behaviour above that treats human life as having intrinsic value.

Is your statement that neither of us are definitively correct definitively correct?

Right, religious people are notoriously unable to accept their own subjectivity. If you want to pretend your argument is an objective truth, that would certainly be in character. I obviously don't see it that way.

I would not argue that my argument is objective per se, but that God has revealed things to us objectively and that we can know them. It's not about my objectivity, but God's.

[Goodspeed]

Finally replied on the computer so I can do some better formatting.

Summed up simply, the noetic effect of sin teaches that the human mind and reasoning has been corrupted in the fall. It's belief in this doctrine that led away from trying to deduce what is true and led to the scientific method. They believed that they could be deceived so they needed to test theories against reality. So you can thank Christian theology for the scientific method if you like.

So you're saying that the human mind being corrupted led to it questioning things, and led to a formalized method to learn from observation? Your implication is that questioning things, by extension curiosity itself, is bad. This is exactly what I mean when I say religion is an anti-intellectual movement. This way of thinking is, in my opinion, very destructive to children's intellectual development.

I think you completely misunderstand me. I was merely pointing out the reason the scientific method was developed because I thought you would find it interesting. I didn't intend to imply anything about it. I actually agree with the underpinning theology and it's application in this area. I think questioning things and testing them is a good thing and that curiosity is essential in a child's development. Sorry if my language implied that I thought the scientific method was a negative thing.

Ok. If the noetic effect of sin is a positive effect (and if that is in fact the correct interpretation of your post) can you explain your first usage of the phrase:

The fact that you can't see the logical parallel based on what gives humans value and the right to live leaves me only to say "the noetic effect of sin."

I'm still not sure what you're actually saying there. There is some parallel that I apparently can't see because, what, I'm too into the whole "needing evidence to believe something" thing?

This quote in particular is mind-boggling to me:

It's belief in this doctrine that led away from trying to deduce what is true and led to the scientific method.

The purpose of the scientific method is exactly that.

Glad we agree on this.

I mean the purpose of the scientific method is to deduce what is true. So it didn't lead anyone away from that. Is that what you're agreeing with? Because it directly contradicts what you wrote yourself.

The way you argued at the beginning made me understand that it was not a multiplicity of factors that made abortion right or wrong at various stages. The only way you can hold both factors together is if neither is sufficient to make killing wrong on their own, but when both factors are true it becomes wrong. However that didn't seem to be what you were saying.

It's rather the opposite. Neither factor alone makes killing right, but both combined make it right.

I think you are agreeing with me here, except I am framing it in terms of when abortion is not wrong and you are framing it in terms of when abortion is permissible. You are arguing that both consciousness and location out of the mother are necessary for abortion to be wrong, but that either factor on it's own doesn't make it wrong. Am I correct?

Yes that is what I'm arguing.

Your argument results in you concluding that there isn't inherent value in human life. However I am sure that that is not the way you live.

By your definition of human life that is demonstrably the way I live because I support abortion. Typically human life and consciousness go together, but in this "edge case" they do not.

I'm not saying you always live this way, but that in general you live as if human life has intrinsic value.

Rather I live as if consciousness has intrinsic value. It just happens to come with human life, in most cases.

Is your statement that neither of us are definitively correct definitively correct?

Right, religious people are notoriously unable to accept their own subjectivity. If you want to pretend your argument is an objective truth, that would certainly be in character. I obviously don't see it that way.

I would not argue that my argument is objective per se, but that God has revealed things to us objectively and that we can know them. It's not about my objectivity, but God's.

How convenient to have something like that to fall back on. No more need for evidence!
Do you realize how ridiculous that sounds to someone who doesn't believe god, if it in fact exists, has revealed anything to us? Someone who believes that the books containing the "word of god" are works of fiction written by humans. Try to put yourself in the shoes of someone like that, and read what you posted.

[Dolan]

I don't have any strong opinion on this subject of abortion, I'm aware that it's a value-based decision so if you debate reasons for it, you end up running in circles debating each others' values or worldviews.

But I'd make some observations on some of the things that were said here. Not even 1-year old infants possess human consciousness, let alone unborn babies. For this reason, I doubt consciousness can be used as a criterion for deciding on abortions.

Another argument I hinted at in my earlier post is that even if you are born as a human and have a human biology and genome, you may still fail to develop human consciousness, for developmental reasons (not even biological ones, like accidents). The case of feral children stands as evidence that human consciousness is the product of both biology and social nurturing, not of one single cause. So, if your criterion for killing or not killing humans is whether they have consciousness, then pre-conscious babies could be discarded as not yet human, but as organisms that have the potential to grow into humans. Which is an argument you could make about embryos too.

Now you understand why this is a debate on values and worldviews.

[Goodspeed]

But I'd make some observations on some of the things that were said here. Not even 1-year old infants possess human consciousness, let alone unborn babies. For this reason, I doubt consciousness can be used as a criterion for deciding on abortions.

Not you too! I have been very clear about there being 2 criteria in my view.

Now you understand why this is a debate on values and worldviews.

Of course it is. It's still interesting to see others' perspectives on it.

What is your not-so-strong opinion on abortion?

[iNcog]

-- deleted post --

[Victor_swe]

I would say atleast some 1-year old seems to have human counciousness.
Im not really sure you can always know what/who is counsciouss but i belivie in some cases you can definitly know what is not counsciouss.
I wouldnt be comfortable to assert that even a newborn baby is without counciousness. But maybe it is, im not sure. H

[chris1089]

I think the consistent position is to allow infanticide too. Peter Singer is a proponent of such as position and I think he is consistent with atheistic, naturalistic presuppositions. Will reply to Goodspeed later - one of my favourite streamers is streaming.

[Victor_swe]

You make it sound as his position is that u can just kill ur infants if u dont want them. Im not sure if thats what u ment, maybe my english isnt good enough. But thats really not his position at all.

And most people who is for abortion still dont support really late abortions, wich i think isnt even legal in most places.
So why do u need to be for infanticide becuase u are for abortions to be consistent? Plz explain.

[spanky4ever]

I have no controversial opinions, and that maybe controversial in itself
I only think that things should be fair, and that nobody needs to starve or dye from sickness that there are remedies for - long time ago.
I only think that there should be no billionares that are allowed to decide the political agenda, over millions of ppl who cast their vote.
What is controversial about that?

psst. I also have the uncontroversial mindset, that woman should make decisions over their own bodies. I would call that fair

[Goodspeed]

You make it sound as his position is that u can just kill ur infants if u dont want them. Im not sure if thats what u ment, maybe my english isnt good enough. But thats really not his position at all.

And most people who is for abortion still dont support really late abortions, wich i think isnt even legal in most places.
So why do u need to be for infanticide becuase u are for abortions to be consistent? Plz explain.

He's saying it's consistent to support infanticide if your reason for supporting abortion is solely that the unborn baby is not yet conscious. Of course that is again ignoring the other criterium about it being part of the mother's body. I don't know why that is so popular. I didn't mention it for no reason; it's rather important.

[gibson]

You make it sound as his position is that u can just kill ur infants if u dont want them. Im not sure if thats what u ment, maybe my english isnt good enough. But thats really not his position at all.

And most people who is for abortion still dont support really late abortions, wich i think isnt even legal in most places.
So why do u need to be for infanticide becuase u are for abortions to be consistent? Plz explain.

He's saying it's consistent to support infanticide if your reason for supporting abortion is solely that the unborn baby is not yet conscious. Of course that is again ignoring the other criterium about it being part of the mother's body. I don't know why that is so popular. I didn't mention it for no reason; it's rather important.

You should realize that he will just ignore anything that isn't blatantly spelled out and act like it doesn't exist. Very bad faith arguer.

[Dolan]

But I'd make some observations on some of the things that were said here. Not even 1-year old infants possess human consciousness, let alone unborn babies. For this reason, I doubt consciousness can be used as a criterion for deciding on abortions.

Not you too! I have been very clear about there being 2 criteria in my view.

[...] the other criterium about it being part of the mother's body. I don't know why that is so popular. I didn't mention it for no reason; it's rather important.

Infants feel part of the mother's body even after they are born. They don't have a developed sense of self, as an entity that is separate from the mother's body. When the mother is away, babies go through separation anxiety. In the first few months, this is not a problem, I think, because they are barely aware of their surroundings. But once they open their eyes and parse the environment and get a spatial sense of their body and their position relative to the body of the caregiver, they also start going through feelings of abandonment if the mother is not there. It takes some years before they wean themselves off their dependence on their mother and develop a sense of self-agency.
So, in a way, they meet those two criteria even after birth.

If the pro-abortion argument revolves around the idea that pregnancy is a burden, an overbearing responsibility on the mother, moreso when unwanted, and only physical removal of the embryo (which also results in its death) could terminate this burden, then the same argument could be made for newborns. They don't have a fully developed consciousness and they feel like an extension of the mother's body rather than their own separate self. A counter-argument could be made that, at this stage, an infant could also be put up for adoption, but that would just pass the issue on to someone else.

I don't think it's sophistry to argue like this, I'm just saying such an argument is possible and many would consider it valid. In real life, though, policies on abortion are not made based on carefully considered arguments, people just decide based on the most common denominator in terms of values (which is influenced by many things: zeitgeist, lingering traditions that are gradually losing their hold, shocking cases shown in the media, etc). There are also some more practical reasons for why abortions have been banned in the past, but I'll make this point later.

What is your not-so-strong opinion on abortion?

I think I'd have a meta-ethical approach to it and just let people decide based on what they think is right. Because even if you're not religious or don't have any reasons for considering embryos to have any special nature, you could still take a more existential view on such a choice: what if your mother chose to end your potential to come into the world and everything you consider great about your life would have never had a chance to take place. Maybe you did something valuable that would have never happened, or had a great impact on the world in a way that would set the world onto a much worse course if none of that happened.

I know that's the case for me, since I wasn't part of any plans, I just got a lucky throw of randomness and I eventually became fate.

But coming back to the point on policy I wanted to make, very often states have banned abortions simply for practical reasons. Communists in Romania just wanted to grow the population and build that utopian, progressive equalitarian future with a marching army of New Men and New Women. Even if their ideology was Marxist materialism, which made them have no special spiritual attachment to embryos, for reasons of pure practicality, they decreed every family should play their part in building that great society of the future by having at least two kids. I guess they knew that, if left to their own devices, modern people would opt for the convenient choice and have only one or none. People tend to make the choice to have kids when they live through hardship; when they install themselves very comfortably in their lives, they value their own space and time so much that the idea of having kids is like a proposition to go through hardship for no reason whatsoever.

[fightinfrenchman]

@Dolan Post your actual terrible controversial opinion

viewtopic.php?f=315&t=18314&p=463079&hi ... to#p463079

[chris1089]

You make it sound as his position is that u can just kill ur infants if u dont want them. Im not sure if thats what u ment, maybe my english isnt good enough. But thats really not his position at all.

And most people who is for abortion still dont support really late abortions, wich i think isnt even legal in most places.
So why do u need to be for infanticide becuase u are for abortions to be consistent? Plz explain.

He's saying it's consistent to support infanticide if your reason for supporting abortion is solely that the unborn baby is not yet conscious. Of course that is again ignoring the other criterium about it being part of the mother's body. I don't know why that is so popular. I didn't mention it for no reason; it's rather important.

You should realize that he will just ignore anything that isn't blatantly spelled out and act like it doesn't exist. Very bad faith arguer.

I think almost every case can be explained by me misunderstanding the point (perhaps because logical steps are missed out as you say) or by you not understanding the logic. If you would like to provide justification for your claim, rather than spouting baseless as hominems I would appreciate it.

[chris1089]

Show hidden quotes

Summed up simply, the noetic effect of sin teaches that the human mind and reasoning has been corrupted in the fall. It's belief in this doctrine that led away from trying to deduce what is true and led to the scientific method. They believed that they could be deceived so they needed to test theories against reality. So you can thank Christian theology for the scientific method if you like.

So you're saying that the human mind being corrupted led to it questioning things, and led to a formalized method to learn from observation? Your implication is that questioning things, by extension curiosity itself, is bad. This is exactly what I mean when I say religion is an anti-intellectual movement. This way of thinking is, in my opinion, very destructive to children's intellectual development.

I think you completely misunderstand me. I was merely pointing out the reason the scientific method was developed because I thought you would find it interesting. I didn't intend to imply anything about it. I actually agree with the underpinning theology and it's application in this area. I think questioning things and testing them is a good thing and that curiosity is essential in a child's development. Sorry if my language implied that I thought the scientific method was a negative thing.

Ok. If the noetic effect of sin is a positive effect (and if that is in fact the correct interpretation of your post) can you explain your first usage of the phrase:

The fact that you can't see the logical parallel based on what gives humans value and the right to live leaves me only to say "the noetic effect of sin."

I'm still not sure what you're actually saying there. There is some parallel that I apparently can't see because, what, I'm too into the whole "needing evidence to believe something" thing?

I'm not saying that the noetic effect of sin is a good thing. It's bad. However, what I am saying is that a good thing, the scientific method, came from a right understanding of this piece of theology. Can I point out that this is a doctrine that effects everyone, including "believers." When I say that you can't see because of the noetic effect of sin, I say that I would be in the same position except for the supernatural working of God to have repentance for sin and trust in the Son for the forgiveness of my sins. He gave me a changed heart, which does not mean that the noetic effect of sin stops affecting me, but rather that I am enabled to see some things despite it.

Show hidden quotes

This quote in particular is mind-boggling to me:

It's belief in this doctrine that led away from trying to deduce what is true and led to the scientific method.

The purpose of the scientific method is exactly that.

Glad we agree on this.

I mean the purpose of the scientific method is to deduce what is true. So it didn't lead anyone away from that. Is that what you're agreeing with? Because it directly contradicts what you wrote yourself.

When I said deduce, I meant sitting in a room trying to reason what must be true of the world like Plato. So in a sense yes the scientific method is used to deduce what is true, but it is doing so from a pragmatic perspective rather than a rationalistic one.

I think you are agreeing with me here, except I am framing it in terms of when abortion is not wrong and you are framing it in terms of when abortion is permissible. You are arguing that both consciousness and location out of the mother are necessary for abortion to be wrong, but that either factor on it's own doesn't make it wrong. Am I correct?

Yes that is what I'm arguing.

@gibson I hope this proves to you it's not bad faith, even if it takes me 4 exchanges of posts to get to the point where I can accurately represent the viewpoint of the person I am interacting with. Maybe you can stop the false allegations?

I'm not saying you always live this way, but that in general you live as if human life has intrinsic value.

Rather I live as if consciousness has intrinsic value. It just happens to come with human life, in most cases.

consciousness in the right location? Could consciousness in Antarctica be less valuable than that in the arctic? Suppose the baby already has consciousness (however you define consciousness) then is it the embryonic cord having been severed that makes killing the baby wrong? Or leaving the uterus? Or leaving the cervix? Half way out of the uterus? A fingernail out in the fresh air?

I would not argue that my argument is objective per se, but that God has revealed things to us objectively and that we can know them. It's not about my objectivity, but God's.

How convenient to have something like that to fall back on. No more need for evidence!
Do you realize how ridiculous that sounds to someone who doesn't believe god, if it in fact exists, has revealed anything to us? Someone who believes that the books containing the "word of god" are works of fiction written by humans. Try to put yourself in the shoes of someone like that, and read what you posted.

I know it sounds ridiculous because I haven't always been a Christian. What kind of evidence do you want, because you can only do science in the present? How are you going to interpret such evidence? Why can you trust your interpretation of such evidence? Again, this leads to a conflict between how you live (where you act as though gravity 100% acts on you) and what your position forces you to say which is that we can't know completely for sure whether gravity acts. You live in God's world and behave as though you can know things are true in it because you are made in the image of God yet you deny his existence.

[Goodspeed]

I think you are agreeing with me here, except I am framing it in terms of when abortion is not wrong and you are framing it in terms of when abortion is permissible. You are arguing that both consciousness and location out of the mother are necessary for abortion to be wrong, but that either factor on it's own doesn't make it wrong. Am I correct?

Yes that is what I'm arguing.

@gibson I hope this proves to you it's not bad faith, even if it takes me 4 exchanges of posts to get to the point where I can accurately represent the viewpoint of the person I am interacting with. Maybe you can stop the false allegations?

I reread your statement and realized it's actually not what I'm arguing. I guess your phrasing confused me earlier. If the factors are:
1. The baby is in the mother's body
2. The baby isn't conscious
... my position is actually that neither factor on its own makes it right. I pointed out earlier that this is in fact opposite of what you're saying. Either factor on its own makes it wrong, but combined they make it right.

I'm not saying you always live this way, but that in general you live as if human life has intrinsic value.

Rather I live as if consciousness has intrinsic value. It just happens to come with human life, in most cases.

Consciousness in the right location? Could consciousness in Antarctica be less valuable than that in the arctic? Suppose the baby already has consciousness (however you define consciousness)

Then it is wrong no matter where the baby is.

The reason the location is important to me is that I think the mother has jurisdiction over her own body. She can do whatever she wants with it. However when the baby develops consciousness of its own, in my view it becomes a separate entity with its own rights.

What kind of evidence do you want, because you can only do science in the present?

This particular discussion isn't really about facts. Like I said, positions on abortion are subjective. See Dolan's posts about this, I think he elaborated more than I did.

How are you going to interpret such evidence? Why can you trust your interpretation of such evidence? Again, this leads to a conflict between how you live (where you act as though gravity 100% acts on you) and what your position forces you to say which is that we can't know completely for sure whether gravity acts. You live in God's world and behave as though you can know things are true in it because you are made in the image of God yet you deny his existence.

Observations combined with statistics give us levels of confidence about things. I can be fairly certain gravity exists, though indeed never 100%. Close enough to 100%, though, that the possibility of it not existing isn't really worth entertaining unless you're in some philosophical discussion about objective truth, which we happen to find ourselves in.

what your position forces you to say

Maybe your experience before you "accepted Christ in your heart" was that your position "forced" you to say certain things you didn't really believe. Fortunately that's not an issue for me. I say things because I really believe them, not because I'm supposed to believe them.

[Dolan]

Not even 1-year old infants possess human consciousness

lmao what?

just because you can't remember doesn't mean it doesn't have consciousness. again with the pseudo science

[duckzilla]

You live in God's world and behave as though you can know things are true in it because you are made in the image of God yet you deny his existence.

lol

[chris1089]

You make it sound as his position is that u can just kill ur infants if u dont want them. Im not sure if thats what u ment, maybe my english isnt good enough. But thats really not his position at all.

And most people who is for abortion still dont support really late abortions, wich i think isnt even legal in most places.
So why do u need to be for infanticide becuase u are for abortions to be consistent? Plz explain.

Because there aren't logical absolutes as to why the killing of the baby becomes wrong. The level of consciousness or thought doesn't magically change when it is born, it just moves a few inches. So why should that confer rights? That's why the consistent position with allowing late term abortion is allowing infanticide too. I think there is a similar slippery slope with other term limits too.

[chris1089]

Not even 1-year old infants possess human consciousness

lmao what?

just because you can't remember doesn't mean it doesn't have consciousness. again with the pseudo science

Clearly conscious

[Victor_swe]

You make it sound as his position is that u can just kill ur infants if u dont want them. Im not sure if thats what u ment, maybe my english isnt good enough. But thats really not his position at all.

And most people who is for abortion still dont support really late abortions, wich i think isnt even legal in most places.
So why do u need to be for infanticide becuase u are for abortions to be consistent? Plz explain.

Because there aren't logical absolutes as to why the killing of the baby becomes wrong. The level of consciousness or thought doesn't magically change when it is born, it just moves a few inches. So why should that confer rights? That's why the consistent position with allowing late term abortion is allowing infanticide too. I think there is a similar slippery slope with other term limits too.

Are people really performing abortions in week 30+ or so tho?
I dont know the law everywere but in sweden u can have abortions untill week 18. And untill week 22 in special situations.
Sure there isnt a sinle day when The counciousness magically changes. But it happens over time and u have to draw The line somewhere. I belive The reason for the latest allowed abortion is week 22 because babies born at that time can survive outside The Mother. Seems reasonable to me atleast.

[chris1089]

Not everywhere, but some places yes. Historically infanticide is really common and still goes on today (lots of disabled children in Kenya are left by their parents to die for example.) The baby is just as dependent on another (whether the mother or someone else) until they are quite a bit older.