Pro-Choice Christian

Discussion in 'Off-topic Discussion' started by Mr. McMarty, Sep 4, 2019.

  1. ⏳⏳⏳

    ⏳⏳⏳ Fapstronaut

    If blood doesn't matter why did you brought it up? Whatever, just please keep your focus on the topic, no wireless and no lizard people this time, okay?
    Today I walked past a woman on the sidewalk. My monkey brain yelled, "rape, rape!" but I decided not to go for it. Now, considering that she might have kept the baby, did I "steal his or her life"? The kid might have grown up to become someone amazing. And just because of my selfish desire to keep out of jail, I denied him that opportunity! Oh no, I killed that baby! Shoulda raped her!
     
  2. Marcus Aurelius

    Marcus Aurelius Fapstronaut

    435
    355
    63
    In Acts Ananias and Sapphira were killed in judgement by God. God didn't command anyone to kill them.

    This isn't relevant to the topic, but I'm just going to throw it out there. The concept of Biblical inerrancy is not a belief held by all Christians. For example, Anglicanism doesn't profess it (there are several others, but I can't say for sure which ones off the top of my head). It isn't an idea stated in the Bible itself nor in any of the ancient creeds. As far as I can tell, inerrancy (or at least the modern concept of it) was created in response to the controversies of the 19th century e.g. Darwin's theory of evolution, calculations of the age of the earth, archaeological discoveries. Before that, it didn't exist (again, at least in the modern way of understanding it). Today, inerrancy is most strongly held by the evangelical church and, for those who grow up in that culture, it seems like the only way to read the Bible, but it definitely isn't. I just wanted to point this out because when I hear people talk about contradictions in the Bible, I can tell they are operating from an inerrancy point of view - a point of view I haven't held for several years now despite remaining a committed Christian.
     
  3. EXPONENTIALLY

    EXPONENTIALLY Fapstronaut

    You're being foolish and deranged here. Abortion isn't abstaining from your own rape thought, God says to be sexually pure and be chaste before marriage not indulging in lasciviousness. It's good that you control yourself, self-control or "temperance" is what God demands also. But human life is indeed meant to be lived and not killed, despite this fallen temporary world.

    I let you choose your path and informations for your life. God bless you. But I would defend human life if you intend to kill it.
     
    Last edited: Sep 4, 2019
    Castielle and pornnomore18 like this.
  4. Mr. McMarty

    Mr. McMarty Fapstronaut

    Careful now. I love the debate, but ill delete the thread if we all go overboard with personal attacks.
     
  5. 2974629562994628

    2974629562994628 Fapstronaut

    Just close the thread. It ain't going to get any better from here.
     
    pornnomore18 and Mr. McMarty like this.
  6. Marcus Aurelius

    Marcus Aurelius Fapstronaut

    435
    355
    63
    The difference I think is that in your scenario, we are dealing with a completely hypothetical person - a person who may come to exist in the act of rape you described. With a fetus, we are dealing with something more tangible. A fetus already has the genome it will have once it is out of the womb. It is already an individual. It's an organism. A member of the human race.
     
    brilliantidiot and Mr. McMarty like this.
  7. brilliantidiot

    brilliantidiot Fapstronaut

    473
    7,424
    123
    As @Marcus Aurelius said, you can't kill someone who doesn't exist.
     
    pornnomore18 likes this.
  8. drac16

    drac16 Fapstronaut

    844
    793
    93
    Yes, I believe it's possible. If someone is brand new to the christian faith and they don't know much about what we believe, it is possible for them to be pro-choice and christian.
     
  9. ⏳⏳⏳

    ⏳⏳⏳ Fapstronaut

    According to @EXPONENTIALLY everybody already existed before the world got created.
    So either of these have to be true
    1. You can kill someone who wasn't neither born nor conceived - including the product of yesterday's hypothetical rape I spoke about, let's call him Guy - which means non-rape=murder.
    2. It isn't killing because Guy was already picked never to be conceived. But when fate is already decided we can't be called to responsibility for our actions. Thus, even if abortions were a bad thing, it's not the fault of the people doing them. It's God's fault.
     
    brilliantidiot likes this.
  10. ⏳⏳⏳

    ⏳⏳⏳ Fapstronaut

    First of all, I don't buy you believe what you're saying. I don't believe that in your mind there's an equal sign between flushing a microscopic cell formation and beheading a toddler. I don't believe that.

    Now to the topic of the abortion debate in general. One says it's blood that makes you a human. You say it's DNA. Hmmm. Why not, I don't know brain cells? Those are important, no? Or breathing? Or the first cell ever - the mother's egg - that one develops even before the mother is born? Or is it having drank beer that makes us human?

    This is an extremely stupid debate. Yet people insist on going on and on with it. It always goes like this - somebody picks one arbitrary condition from the list above and proclaims it as the definition of life. Then they use that to justify abortions, abortion bans, throwing newborns off a cliff in ancient Sparta, whatever... It's all stupid. There are only two logically consistent views.
    1. The point of life is reproduction of the species. Any hindrance is evil. Killing is bad. Abortion is bad. Condoms are bad. Refusing to have sex is bad. Not raping when you get the opportunity is bad.
    2. It's a fundamental human right to have the power of life and death over one's children. That means you get to pick not to have sex. Or to use contraception. Or abortion. Or killing the asshole after he's born and makes too much noise.
    But something tells me neither of those is a good answer to the abortion question. So it seems there is no right answer at all. Sex has many purposes and only of them is reproduction.

    So I guess - just do whatever is socially acceptable at the current time and place?
     
  11. brilliantidiot

    brilliantidiot Fapstronaut

    473
    7,424
    123
    Rolling with that, if everybody who will ever exist already will exist, then non-rape is not a murder because that person was never meant to exist.
    Yes. Which is why I, as a Christian, don't believe that every single detail was planned out, because we aren't in that case responsible for our actions. I believe there are many things God has planned, but I don't think every microscopic detail is destined to happen in one certain way; that essentially makes us robots.
     
    Mr. McMarty likes this.
  12. brilliantidiot

    brilliantidiot Fapstronaut

    473
    7,424
    123
    I like the way you argue but I have to disagree. There are only 2 logically consistent views accepting the terms you dictated.
    This is exactly right. And neither of your two options comply with that statement:
    Thats is the fallacy of bifurcation I believe. I think there is a third option as well:

    3. Sex has many purposes and only of them is reproduction. It's a general human right to have the power of life over one's children. You may decide when and if to have children. However, once that decision is made, you cannot undo it. It is not killing to decide not to produce life, it is murder to decide to undo produced life.
     
  13. Marcus Aurelius

    Marcus Aurelius Fapstronaut

    435
    355
    63
    Why not? I would have a more visceral reaction to someone beheading a toddler vs. someone flushing a fetus down a toilet, it is true, but what does that prove? I would also have a more visceral reaction to someone killing someone I love vs. a stranger.

    I disagree that this is a stupid debate. The question of what makes us human is one of the most profound questions we can ask imo. It has puzzled scientists, philosophers, theologians etc. for centuries and will continue to do so long after we are dead, I imagine. Just because there are no easy answers doesn't mean it isn't a discussion worth having. If you truly believe this is a stupid debate, you don't need to engage in it.

    For the record, I don't think that DNA is what makes us human. I don't know what makes us human. However, I go to DNA because it has an attribute that a concept like the soul doesn't: It can be observed. We know that a lot of our identity as individuals is determined by our DNA (again, I don't think we are defined in our totality by our DNA, but it does play a significant role) and that coding is already present in a fetus. I'm not saying this settles the abortion debate, but I think it's important to point out.

    I don't understand why you are trying to reduce a complex debate into a dichotomy. There are all kinds of nuances in between these two views. I'm against abortion, so you would put me into category one... except I don't believe that the point of life is the reproduction of the species. I don't think that killing is always bad. I don't think that condoms are bad. I don't think that refusing to have sex is bad. And I don't think that rape is ever the right action to take.

    Fundamentally, I believe that virtue is more important than survival. I also believe that we should think critically of the culture we live in, so I disagree that we should just go along with whatever is socially acceptable in our time and place. I don't care about what is socially acceptable; I care about what is right.
     
    Last edited: Sep 6, 2019
    vowed and brilliantidiot like this.
  14. ⏳⏳⏳

    ⏳⏳⏳ Fapstronaut

    Yes, exactly. That means it's not going to be solved by us. Ergo it's a stupid debate.
    Quite the contrary! The most useful thing you can discover in a debate is its meaninglessness. You're welcome.
    Then you cannot defend your point. Your claim "abortion is bad because unborns have DNA" is completely dependent on the idea that human DNA is a defining characteristic of a human worth protecting. If you don't believe in that, you can't make the claim.
    Yes! Are you finally getting why I said this debate was pointless? There are two admissible answers that I know of (if you think there's another one, please share it). But nobody - including yourself - picks either of them. Instead, people take a position somewhere between those extremes. That position contradicts itself but the idiots don't care. They scream at the morons on the other side of the barricade, thinking themselves oh so right and moral...
    Then take a stance which you can defend. Or acknowledge that there's no satisfactory answer.
     
  15. jarvyjarvison

    jarvyjarvison Fapstronaut

    307
    364
    63
    Wow. Number 1 is a crappy example of a strawman argument. Nobody ever argued that not raping someone is murder. That's your argument. There's no such thing as a potential person, he exists soley in your imagination. So, you're killing an imaginary person, which is not murder. Most Christians believe that life begins at the moment of conception, when the child receives their soul.

    Number 2 doesnt make sense either because "fate" doesn't decide anything. When someone has an abortion it is by their own free will. If it weren't an act of free will then it they wouldn't be responsible for it but most Christians believe in free will.
     
    Castielle and Mr. McMarty like this.
  16. ⏳⏳⏳

    ⏳⏳⏳ Fapstronaut

    Jeez, another one who doesn't understand reductio ad absurdum? I can't explain everything three times, sorry.
     
  17. jarvyjarvison

    jarvyjarvison Fapstronaut

    307
    364
    63
    So what are you trying to say? That abortion is okay in some instances because not raping someone is an abortion? Sorry, it's not. An abortion is any termination of the child after the moment of conception, when the child receives his or her soul. Not raping someone is not an abortion so you're abusing reduction ad absurdum and making a strawman to tear down.
     
    Castielle and vxlccm like this.
  18. ⏳⏳⏳

    ⏳⏳⏳ Fapstronaut

    Citation needed.
     
  19. SuperFan

    SuperFan Fapstronaut

    A rare example of critical thinking in the NoFap forums.

    Can you be a pro-choice Christian? Sure. You can also be a Christian and think idolatry, theft, lying, slander, adultery, or murder are permissible. You'll just be wrong.
     
  20. vowed

    vowed Fapstronaut

    44
    76
    18
    Of course not.

    What verbal engineering calls "choice" is ending the life of a pre-born human being.

    Killing a living human being who has no guilt is not coherent with the Christian life. A Christian modern meditates on the Scripture "greater love has no one than to lay down one's life". There are no exceptions allowing for abortion.

    A wonderful example is the life and death of Gianna Molla, a witness to Christian life and to the sanctity of human life from the moment of conception to natural death.

    And, by the way, contraception is the door to abortion.
     

Share This Page