Abortion is Murder
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
After 5 votes and with 26 points ahead, the winner is...
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 3
- Time for argument
- One week
- Max argument characters
- 10,000
- Voting period
- One week
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
- Open
I (Kouen) will argue that Abortion Is Murder while the opponent will argue that Abortion Is not Murder
Kouen R1
Shared burden of proof, murder as killing,
One might argue 'why the word murder exists, if it means the 'same as killing,
Also might have been better put in description.
By Kouen's definition, I assume he'll make strong push towards debate being about whether fetus is a 'person.
Kouen uses a source and pushes for human life starting at fertilization,
Still, human 'life might not be viewed the same as human 'being.
Public-Choice R1
Yeah there's the weak point of using definitions in R1 rather than description, that can occur,
Though sometimes opponents are agreeable enough to R1 definitions.
I think that's a 'really weak definition of murder by Public-Choice.
To me looks that it's 'clearly talking about 'nations more than people.
Sources 2-5 argue for people having access and against criminalizing abortion, but that isn't the same as them taking a stance on whether it is murder/killing or not.
Not 'all definitions of murder 'require it to be criminal.
With just 1 round (The rest being forfeited or extended), neither side makes 'arguments that I consider convincing or 'better, Tie,
Both sides used sources, but I did not think Public-Choice's 'fit into the debate,
However Kouen did not fully 'utilize their source, Tie,
Legibility tie, both understandable.
Public-Choice get's conduct, since they were at least 'around for the debate,
Still, "(waiving is not an argument)"
https://info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
Full forfeit by Pro.
Full forfeit.
Nothing really to add. Seems like it could have been a good debate, but it’s a FF from Pro.
Nice R1 from pro but ultimately an FF.
Con wisely calls out the definition for special pleading. Additionally it’s an absurd definition, which reduced self defense and everyone involved in convicting and executing a mass murderer as murderers themselves.
Flipping pros own appeal to authority was well executed (pun intended, murderer!). While I see defenses which could be done on that front, they were not.
Hello, I believe that stating abortion as being a legal act in certain states in the United States of America is necessary enough to conclude that abortion is not murder in any way. Once the act is legal, by lawful and by definition; abortion is not murder. Regardless of terminating a human or not.
I am also going to offer an explanation for my belief, which I hope would aid you in reaching your objectives more clearly and specify information's in a very effective approach.
Offered explanation for this belief: (Cancellation Task used for effective explanation to exchange understanding)
The definition of "Murder" from the Oxford languages is: "the unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another."
By using this definition of "Murder" from the Oxford languages, I could conclude that abortion is not murder for certain states in the United States of America. Murder is related to law, if the law itself (meaning the certain states that allow abortion as a legal act) allows abortion, then murder would not be classified as the correct word to be used in any of these statements because murder is unlawful, and if the law itself permits the unlawful (regardless of abortion being considered a criminal offence in other states), there are certain states that allow what is also a criminal offence in other states; which is abortion. If you see how abortion being a criminal offence simply cancels out whenever it comes to certain states in the United States of America, then you'd understand how stating "abortion as being a legal act in the United States of America is necessary enough to conclude that abortion is not murder in any way", note that this perspective is very much different from how you viewed it when according to your explanation, and I presume that it may have a slight complexity to grasp.
I do hope that this offered explanation would give you insights on how to use arguments quickly and efficiently, and I hope that my belief in general would be in any of use to you.
(Also to mention, this explanation is based on location varying in the United States of America as included inside the debate, although for some reason, the subject of topic is generalized, and for some reason you've pointed it down to "United States of America", even though the concept of murder alone; especially when written in this way "Abortion is murder" or "Abortion is not murder" generalized and not specifically referring to one location but all locations that deal with law or contain law in them, which automatically categorizes as the fallacy of hasty generalization.)
.
"Public-Choice," the RUNAWAY from biblical axioms because he can't address them and remain intelligent looking in the aftermath, and now a pseudo-christian, whereas he can't handle Jesus' true modus operandi as a serial killer and abortionist, and comes up with some of the lamest "little boy excuses" not to address my posts to him,
************ Congratulations are in order for you "TO WIN ONE THIRD OF THE DEBATE" with Kouen since he forfeited 2 rounds! LOL! ***********
In you accomplishing the above, it saved me from continuing to show just how Bible Stupid and ignorant of same you truly are in front of the membership, whereas you can thank me later for saving you from further biblical embarrassment, okay?
NEXT BIBLE DUMB PSEUDO-CHRISTIAN LIKE "PUBLIC-CHOICE" THAT WILL ASSUME THAT HE WON THIS DEBATE TOTALLY, WHEN HE DIDN'T AS SHOWN, WILL BE ...?
.
Kouen's sources didn't fit either quite. Kouen's 'might have, if they had made more arguments, but as they were, I thought them incomplete, hence I didn't give Kouen any points for sources.
I did not think your sources fit either, albeit I thoughts they fit 'worse than Kouen's, because I did not read anywhere in your sources, statements on whether abortion was 'murder or not.
Your articles made statements for abortion not to be criminal, and a right to medically necessary procedures, but this is not the same as stating whether abortion is murder/killing.
Nor whether they considered fertilization the start of human life.
Though it 'is possible I did not read your sources in depth enough, which 'would be a fault on me, and is possible to have occurred.
However, I don't see those 'highlighted in your round 1 gray box quotes either.
. . .
I would argue that personhood is 'often a crux for abortion debates.
. . .
Language and concepts can be vague, bleed into each other.
. . .
I mentioned it in my vote, because Kouen specifically stated his source supported when human 'life started, that's where a vaguery might be,
And where many Pro Choice individuals might have attacked his arguments.
. .
Can one 'murder what is 'not a person?
Arguably one can 'kill life, or even inanimate objects from a certain point of view.
But 'murder,
Though shall not kill,
Usually speaks of 'humans, of persons.
Not trees, art, desks, 'pieces of humans, nor even animals other than humans,
But 'people, individuals.
. . .
I suppose there are ways your sources could have fit in later arguments,
But not in the one you made in round 1, stating that,
"The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG), which is the largest group of reproductive scientists and members of the medical field, does not agree that abortion is murder."
From my current viewpoint.
Why didn't my sources fit while PRO's did?
They were medical doctors, delivery room medical staff, and gynecologists. All involved in pregnancy and human life. All trained in medicine and human biology.
Also, why does personhood matter? The debate is on whether abortion is murder, not on whether a fetus is a person. I feel you defaulted to PRO even though PRO did not really defend his positon all that well.
(btw, I am actually against abortion and do believe if is murder)
.
Relative to your post #72 about the runaway from biblical axioms, "Public-Choice," he does represent Miss Tradesecret's modus operandi of having to RUN AWAY and hide from the disturbing Jesus' inspired words. But, what did we expect from Bible ignorant pseudo-christians like him in the first place? LOL
The pseudo-christian Bible fool "Public-Choice" couldn't debate himself out of a broom closet, therefore we have to accept their RUNAWAY status upon this Religion Forum.
We will know without question when "Public-Choice" bans us from conversation with him, which shows he has ran out of lame excuses to use to save himself from further embarrassment we give him regarding our superior knowledge of the Bible over his weak grade school assumed knowledge of the Bible, just like Miss Tradesecret had to do a while back!
Pseudo-christians are a funny lot to say the least.
.
I am just totally baffled by the fact that Public- Choice is more than prepared to have OPEN discussions on any other of the sub forums about any subject on this site until it comes to the religion forum!? But instead wishes to hold any discussion on religion in private in the form of private messages!!!?
And after having the brass balls to accuse me of not being willing to have an "OPEN" discussion" with him!!!? #56 <<< THIS, Brother D. is right out of the Reverend Tradesecret book of hypocrisy and cowardly excuses not to engage.
.
Stephen,
What the two pseudo-christian Bible fools "Public-Choice and Kouen" forget in their weak Christian debate skills in when life actually begins, is with the FIRST BREATH so saith Jesus as God in the following passage: "Then the Lord God formed the man of dust from the ground and 'breathed into his nostrils the breath of life,' and the man became a living creature." (Genesis 2:7). Therefore, it DOES NOT BEGIN AT FERTILIZATION, or any other time, except with the first breath, period!
Does "Public-Choice and Kouen" want to say that Jesus as God is wrong in this respect? Therefore, all of their weak arguments fall flat upon their face, and is an embarrassment to Christianity and this Religious Forum as well!
.
.
Stephen,
YOUR QUOTE FROM THE BIBLE FOOL "PUBLIC-CHOICE" IN HAVING TO RUN AWAY FROM JESUS AS GOD BEING A BRUTAL SERIAL KILLER OF INNOCENT LIFE WITHIN THE WOMB EQUALLING ABORTION: "Have you ever considered that I didn't want to deal with sophomoric and pseudo-intellectual arguments about God being "evil" for killing people who were, in fact, evil and unjust themselves?"
What poor "Public-Choice" still doesn't understand at his expense AGAIN in front of the membership, is the FACT that our Jesus, as God, brutally murdered INNOCENT zygotes, fetus' and babies as I have shown throughout this thread, OF WHICH COULD HARDLY BE EVIL like he said in his quote above, DUH! Therefore, it is only sophomoric for "Public-Choice" in not accepting these biblical axioms other than for him to sheepishly RUN AWAY from them and go into hiding to try and save face like he is doing at this time!
I as a TRUE Christian have had to accept these disturbing facts about Jesus, where poor ol' "Public-Choice" continues to give embarrassing quotes of why he has to RUN AWAY from Jesus being a brutal serial killer of innocent life within the womb, where "Public-Choice" is a pseudo-christian at best!
How many times have we seen pseudo-christians like "Public-Choice" come and go within this prestigious Religion Forum after being Bible Slapped Silly®️by us, and other members? The count is endless to say the least.
.
Barney,
YOUR QUOTE TO ME QUESTIONING YOUR VOTE TOWARDS "PUBLIC-CHOICE" SUBSEQUENT TO HIM DESPARAGING YOUR CATHOLIC FAITH: "Suriously, take a chill pill."
Barney, you should know better that Jesus does not allow me to take a "chill pill" relative to preaching His true words towards the Bible stupids like "Public-Choice!" Tsk, tsk, tsk.
Subsequent to the repost of "Public-Choice's" thread in disparaging your faith of Catholicism, and you voting for him in this debate in front of the eyes of Jesus (Hebrews 4:13), biblically instead you should be defending your faith towards the Bible fool "Public-Choice" as Jesus’ inspired words so state herewith: ""He must hold firm to the trustworthy word as taught, so that he may be able to give instruction in sound doctrine and also 'to rebuke those who contradict it." (Titus 1:9)
To follow Jesus’ word in this respect shown in the passage above, and in Jesus' name, is it possible for you to take back your vote, irrelative to the presentation of "Public Choice" only winning ONE THIRD OF THE DEBATE to begin with since Kouen forfeited the remaining two rounds?
.
Public-Choice wrote: If I comment regularly on religion in the forums, then how can a person assume I am shying away?
Well you didn't take in all that I wrote, did you. LOOK>> "yet are shying away and wanting to hide any discussion when it comes to the religion sub forum?"#65
See that, I said >>" when it comes to the religion sub forum?" <<<<THAT was my whole point. You have no problem posting anywhere else but the religion forum.
Public-Choice wrote: Have you ever considered that I didn't want to deal with sophomoric and pseudo-intellectual arguments about God being "evil" for killing people who were, in fact, evil and unjust themselves?
Then that is all you had to say to begin with then, isn't it? And there would be absolutely no need to have a conversation about you shying away and hiding from creating a thread in the religion forum.
Public-Choice wrote: I don't want to be dog teamed with stupidity and waste my time for no reason. So I don't post in the religious forums.
Then I suppose this is where we end our exchanges. But I would have been interested to read your thread on how "IT" the bible, speaks for itself.
You said: "yet are shying away and wanting to hide any discussion when it comes to the religion sub forum"
Well, let's put on our thinking caps here...
If I comment regularly on religion in the forums, then how can a person assume I am shying away?
Have you ever considered that I didn't want to deal with sophomoric and pseudo-intellectual arguments about God being "evil" for killing people who were, in fact, evil and unjust themselves?
Or run into the same atheistic unintellectual brain slop of "because evil exists there is no God" or "God is unfair because he doesn't align with my arbitrary, illogical views of right and wrong"?
I don't want to be dog teamed with stupidity and waste my time for no reason. So I don't post in the religious forums. But I obviously am VERY VOCAL about my beliefs in the forums.
Suriously, take a chill pill.
Public-Choice wrote: I am not trying to hide from anything. [.....................]I don't want to shy away over anything.#60
Well considering that is was you that has said that it is- "I" that doesn't wish to have an "open" discussion while flat out refusing yourself to have an "open" discussion on the forum, cannot be seen as nothing short of you clearly displaying that you are trying to hide and shy away.
Like I have said. You haven't seemed at all reluctant to post on any other sub forum openly on the whole of this site, yet are shying away and wanting to hide any discussion when it comes to the religion sub forum?
You could always politely request that other members play an observational role in your thread and simply add their opinions via the thumbs up icon?
In the mean time I shall keep creating threads to the religion forum knowing too well that I have a free hand and will go unchallenged. And you will be welcome to add your opinions any time you feel the need. Which is the reason that a public and open forum exists in the first place.
.
"Public-Choice," the RUNAWAY from biblical axioms because he can't address them and remain intelligent looking in the aftermath, and now a pseudo-christian, whereas he can't handle Jesus' true modus operandi as a serial killer and abortionist, and comes up with some of the lamest "little boy excuses" not to address my posts to him,
YOUR PATHETIC AND MISGUIDED QUOTE TO MODERATOR BARNEY: "Thanks for your vote!"
Barring that you disparaged Barney's Catholic Faith in my post #63, his vote is MEANINGLESS because it matters not when "Kouen" forfeited the debate for whatever reason, because it was NOT A TOTAL DEBATE, whereas you won frivolously on NOT debating until the end of the 6 rounds! This was great for you because you would have shown the membership more of your outright Bible Stupidity like you did with me in this "comment section alone!" LOL! Duh!
.
.
Stephen,
What a comical irony, whereas the Bible Stupid Fool "Public-Choice" disparages the Catholic Faith as heresy, and calls it a CULT!
(https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/8185/posts/355808)
Then our fair-handed moderator "Barney" is a Catholic, yet he still voted for "Public-Choice" in this debate! Wonders will never cease.
.
.
Stephen,
THE BIBLE FOOL PUBLIC-CHOICE STATED TO YOU: "If you are actually open to having am honest discussion, then I am more than happy to talk to you via the messaging system on here".
Why of course this Bible STUPID fool "Public-Choice" wants to go unnoticed to the membership in showing us in how Bible ignorant he truly is, where in messaging only you would know this FACT! He wants to HIDE his absolute Bible Dumbness in messaging, because of the FACT that I have shown in just how Bible lame brained he is in this thread alone! LOL!
.
Thus far, "Public-Choice" has RAN AWAY from the details in my following godly posts directed to him that he just can't address, where I had to easily "school" him on many biblical axioms, and subsequently Public-Choice had to run and hide from them without any serious refutation whatsoever! Therefore, showing without a doubt that he is NOT a Christian, but a pseudo-christian at best! Poor boy. :(
https://www.debateart.com/debates/4987/comments/57232
https://www.debateart.com/debates/4987/comments/57217
https://www.debateart.com/debates/4987/comments/57209
https://www.debateart.com/debates/4987/comments/57204
https://www.debateart.com/debates/4987/comments/57197
https://www.debateart.com/debates/4987/comments/57192
https://www.debateart.com/debates/4987/comments/57182
.
SINCE NO MEMBER WANTED TO HELP THE BIBLE IDIOT "PUBLIC-CHOICE" IN HIS TOTAL BIBLE INEPTNESS AS SHOWN IN THIS THREAD, THEN YOU ARE LEAVING HIM ON HIS OWN TO BE EASILY MADE THE BIBLE FOOL OF THIS THREAD AND OTHERS IN THE FUTURE!
.
Thanks for your vote!
I am not trying to hide from anything. The times I tried to make forum posts to talk to one person people just started debating the topic amongst each other. It basically defeated the purpose.
I have had no problems with the PM system personally. The above reasons are why I suggested it.
I don't want to shy away over anything. I just want to discuss things with one person if they want a full discussion, not 10 or even 100 people, which is what the IM system is for.
Public-Choice wrote: "If you are actually open to having am honest discussion, then I am more than happy to talk to you via the messaging system on here".
You have only just accused me of not being willing to have a "OPEN" discussion! >> "Well, I would if you were actually interested in an open dialogue. But you aren't". #56
And now you want to hide away any discussion on the forums private messaging!? Hardly open , is it?
Public-Choice wrote: The forums are not really a great place for dialogue, more for juat saying your side and not taking into account other perspectives.
Imo there is no better place to have an "OPEN" honest discussion. And the PM system here is terrible. From my own experience, one only has to hit the space bar and the message is sent before a sentence or paragraph is completed.
And I always take into account and consideration other members views, opinions , thoughts, theories and beliefs. It would be silly, not to mention ignorant of me not to. But does this mean I shouldn't question and or counter with my own views, opinions , thoughts, theories and beliefs? This, to me at least, are how arguments that come up for discussion are discussed, debated and at times resolved.
You have created many threads for instance in the politics forum I notice. Why is that? You don't have a problem OPENLY discussing your own views, opinions , thoughts, theories and beliefs on those boards, what is different about the open religion forum?
If you are actually open to having am honest discussion, then I am more than happy to talk to you via the messaging system on here.
The forums are not really a great place for dialogue, more for juat saying your side and not taking into account other perspectives.
Public-Choice wrote: Why do I need to create forum posts on topics YOU want to talk about? Where is the logic in that?
You don't need to. But you have claimed something interesting saying : " I read my bible quite regularly, and I let IT, not the words of some authority figure, speak for itself."
I believe it would make a very interesting thread.
Public-Choice wrote: "You said: "Well you are more that welcome to add your two pennies worth to that thread created over a week ago now...". Well, I would if you were actually interested in an open dialogue. But you aren't",
Stop it. I have had very cordial and open dialogue on that the thread - Original Sin. If I didn't want an open discussion concerning my own beliefs I wouldn't even be on a religion forum on the WWW discussing them.
Public-Choice wrote: "I'd rather not exercise in futility. I could be Galileo to your flat earther world, but seeing as I don't have to be, I don't WANT to be".
Gallieo Gallei was a brilliant mathematician and astronomer. I would have loved to have discussed many thing with him, as would have Jesus.. And I don't believe the earth to be flat either. Doesn't the OT tell us all those years ago that the Earth was round? Marvellous for the time don't you think?
Public-Choice wrote: " I don't know who hurt you"
You are assuming quite a lot about me and getting rather personal.
Public-Choice wrote: "Now, if you are open to an actual DEBATE on these topics then I am totally up for it... after I finish the two I am currently in and another one that I agreed to already via site messaging".
I look forward then to your thread on how "IT" the bible speaks for itself, on the open forum.
Why do I need to create forum posts on topics YOU want to talk about? Where is the logic in that?
You said: "Well you are more that welcome to add your two pennies worth to that thread created over a week ago now..."
Well, I would if you were actually interested in an open dialogue. But you aren't, so I'd rather not exercise in futility. I could be Galileo to your flat earther world, but seeing as I don't have to be, I don't WANT to be.
I don't know who hurt you, but taking it out on random internet users doesn't really solve it all that well now does it?
Now, if you are open to an actual DEBATE on these topics then I am totally up for it... after I finish the two I am currently in and another one that I agreed to already via site messaging.
Public-Choice wrote: "It's funny you should say that, because I read my bible quite regularly, and I let IT, not the words of some authority figure, speak for itself".
Good then start a thread about it. You should have no problem explaining to me and others exactly how "IT" speaks for itself? I look forward to it with great interest,
considering that you have only ever created one in the religion forum. One out of some 40 total threads since the 18 months that you have been here, claiming Catholicism is a cult.
Public-Choice wrote: "your faulty, mostly-unreferenced thread on original sin speaks volumes of your complete lack of Bible knowledge".
Well you are more that welcome to add your two pennies worth to that thread created over a week ago now and dispute anything that I have stated and why you believe my opinions are incorrect. Here you go> https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/10001-original-sin
I reference the bible many times in all of my threads in the religion forum . Indeed all of my threads to do with scripture are full of references from the BIBLE itself. In that particular thread- Original Sin -the BIBLE and or a BIBLICAL character or author is referenced by me in every post I have written.
Indeed, all of my threads in the religion forum concerning the BIBLE are all threads asking questions about the BIBLE. I could hardly question the BIBLE without referencing the BIBLE, could I?
"Imo, you don't have the metal tools nor do you have enough knowledge of the bible to argue a single point when it comes to scripture."
I didn't say I personally agreed with all 3. You leveled a claim against "Christians" saying "we" never thought through the issue. I was simply saying you are wrong, and we have, and those are the 3 most popular responses.
"you haven't read the bible for yourself but instead have totally relied on and listened to the words of the Pastors and Priests"
It's funny you should say that, because I read my bible quite regularly, and I let IT, not the words of some authority figure, speak for itself. You could learn to do the same, since your faulty, mostly-unreferenced thread on original sin speaks volumes of your complete lack of Bible knowledge.
Public-Choice wrote: " Original sin. These people argue that all humankind is automatically guilty due to Adam. An early church council actually affirmed this".
Try reading this thread. You may learn something.>>>>> https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/10001-original-sin
Imo, you don't have the metal tools nor do you have enough knowledge of the bible to argue a single point when it comes to scripture, and that will be because you haven't read the bible for yourself but instead have totally relied on and listened to the words of the Pastors and Priests leaving you to make it all up as you go when challenged on your beliefs .
If you are going to insist on interpreting and preaching scripture, you should at least pick up the bible and read it!
.
"Public-Choice," the RUNAWAY from biblical axioms because he can't address them and remain intelligent looking in the aftermath, and now a pseudo-christian, whereas he can't handle Jesus' true modus operandi as a serial killer and abortionist, and comes up with some of the lamest "little boy excuses" not to address my posts to him,
OMG, just how Bible ignorant and Bible STUPID are you willing to get in front of the eyes of Jesus (Hebrews 4:13) AND the membership? Huh? As if your other Bible Stupid posts in this "comment section" wasn't enough, now you want to add to them? LOL!
Addressing your Bible Stupidity in your post #51, sorry, :(
YOUR BIBLE STUPID QUOTE #1: "Original sin. These people argue that all humankind is automatically guilty due to Adam. An early church council actually affirmed this."
WRONG! It was EVE that transgressed first, and as this godly passage so states, EVE was the origin of the Original Sin, and NOT ADAM you Bible dolt! "And Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor." (1 Timothy 2:14)
.
YOUR BIBLE STUPID QUOTE #2: "God's foreknowledge and omnicience already knew what those babies were going to do, so he still made a just decision."
THANK YOU for finally coming to the Biblical axiom that Jesus as God caused thousands upon thousands of bloody and brutal abortions in His Great Flood, the book of Hosea 9:11-16, and in a woman's menstruation period since He controls ALL things! Since you said Jesus as God made a" just decision" in this respect, would you still consider Jesus as God as ever loving and forgiving that we are taught within the scriptures? Don't be SCARED, SIMPLE QUESTION, YES OR NO?
.
YOUR BIBLE STUPID QUOTE #3: "God's ways are higher than our ways and his thoughts higher than our thoughts, and we are not privy to all the information anyways."
WRONG AGAIN! We are truly privy to what Jesus as God thinks within His inspired Bible Scriptures, you dumbfounded Bible fool! As is explicitly shown throughout this "comment section," you've probably not picked up a Bible in a very long time, but only to use it as a door stop in your living space! LOL! For the most part, the whole Bible is about Jesus as God and His 613 Commandments that embarrassingly you were unaware of, so don't embarrass yourself further by stating that we are not privy to Jesus' thinking you Bible ignorant ignoramus!
.
YOUR STUPID QUOTE #4: "I think all of them provide a robust response when extrapolated further."
WHAT? You don't make sense with what they represent now as I have shown, therefore, if you "tried" to extrapolate your notions above any further, Jesus' words and I would have to Bible Slap you Silly®️ again at your embarrassing expense like we've done in this "comment section" alone! LOL!
.
SERIOUSLY, IS THERE ANY MEMBER THAT CAN HELP "PUBLIC-CHOICE" GET OUT OF THE PREDICAMENT THAT HE HAS FOUND HIMSELF IN, AND THAT IS HIS BEING SO GOD DAMNED BIBLE STUPID HAS NO BOUNDS WHATSOEVER! ..... ANYONE, PLEASE!
.
I meant religiously not ethnically. Though that is a bit of a useless distinction anyways.
There are 3 ways Christianity has thought through that issue:
1. Original sin. These people argue that all humankind is automatically guilty due to Adam. An early church council actually affirmed this.
2. God's foreknowledge and omnicience already knew what those babies were going to do, so he still made a just decision.
3. God's ways are higher than our ways and his thoughts higher than our thoughts, and we are not privy to all the information anyways.
I think all of them provide a robust response when extrapolated further.
No. White male. English. C of E but not practicing.
Aren't you Jewish?
I find it hard to understand why Christians can't accept that their god/Jesus must have destroyed/ murdered thousands of foetuses during the flood. Or in the many battles where again their god/Jesus ordered the deaths of "everything that breaths" which also must have included foetuses.
I have said many times, that this is the result of Christians adopting a god they don't understand, from a time they don't understand and a culture they don't understand. << This is their baby and they have to rock it. This is the rod they made for their own backs and the burden they have to carry and all through their own ignorance of all the above.
.
"Public-Choice," the RUNAWAY from biblical axioms because he can't address them and remain intelligent looking in the aftermath, and now a pseudo-christian, whereas he can't handle Jesus' true modus operandi as a serial killer and abortionist, and comes up with some of the lamest "little boy excuses" not to address my posts to him,
YOUR PITIFUL AND VERY WEAK POST OF A TOTAL BIBLE FOOL: "Once again you don't provide simple answers because you cannot square the circle. Keep in your error for all I care."
OMG! Jesus and I have seen child like runaway posts before, but your post above has got to take the cake whereas you don't have the sense to feel embarrassed over it! LOL!
I have presented NO ERRORS biblically, and that you have to run away from and hide in your pseudo-christian status now, where I have easily Bible Slapped you Silly®️ time and time again in front of the membership, where you cannot use simple logic 101 to determine that since Jesus was the #1 abortionist of all time, then He set an example as in other areas of the Bible for Christians to follow, where they too can abort life within the womb! GET IT? Therefore, to Jesus, ABORTION IS NOT MURDER because He can't go directly against His "thou shalt not murder" in one of His 613 COMMANDMENTS THAT YOU AS A BIBLE FOOL DIDN'T EVEN KNOW EXISTED IN THE FIRST PLACE! Do you want to correct Jesus in this respect and say erroneously that abortion is murder? Huh? Yes? Maybe?
Public-Choice, in you being so God Damed Bible Stupid, my alleged "errors" that you speak of made you the runaway from them in exhibiting Jesus' true tactics of Him being a serial killer and an abortionist, plain and simple, as shown throughout my posts to you!
May I suggest that you DO NOT, I repeat, DO NOT tell any of your friends about this debate you are in, especially the "comment section" of this debate where you were easily made one of the most Bible stupid and Bible ignorant fools this forum has seen in a long time, which would be so embarrassing for you, okay?
Here is a picture of the pseudo-christian "Public-Choice" running away from the FACTS of my posts to him: https://www.imagebam.com/view/MEPPQ63
.
Just a friendly reminder that you have about one day to make your argument.
Once again you don't provide simple answers because you cannot square the circle. Keep in your error for all I care.
Again, I’m not enforcing to stop defamation, but if, as you say, there are other instances of someone engaging in name calling or insults, I am very much willing to pursue them as well. That being said, their presence or absence does not change my warning.
.
white flame,
YOUR QUOTE: "You've called him and many other people on this site defamatory names, so let's not go throwing stones in glass houses"
Since you stated I have called "many other people" on this site defamatory names, why did you pick this time with Public-Choice to call me out with a warning? Other members have acted in the way that I have done in even worse examples of name calling, but they were never addressed by the mods or given a warning by a post to them within the thread. What's that old adage, what's good for the goose, is good for the gander?
.
YOUR QUOTE: "You are also the only one that I have seen between the two of you to engage in a very clearly targeted use of personal attacks aimed not at what he was saying, but at his intelligence."
WRONG! Because of what he was saying relative to his blatant Bible ineptness, I had to attack his "assumed intelligence" like Jesus tells me to do in telling the truth, since he is an alleged Christian! 2+2=4. BUT, as you have told me, I will not attack a member in the vein I was doing before, I'll be Mr. Nice Guy. *cough* :)
.
YOUR QUOTE: "If you want to falsely equivocate, be my guest, but I won't be enforcing based on that equivocation."
Thank you!
.
You've called him and many other people on this site defamatory names, so let's not go throwing stones in glass houses. My role here does not include addressing all instances of defamation. You are also the only one that I have seen between the two of you to engage in a very clearly targeted use of personal attacks aimed not at what he was saying, but at his intelligence. Pointing to other things you have said that would not require my intervention doesn't change the fact that you've done this. If you want to falsely equivocate, be my guest, but I won't be enforcing based on that equivocation.
.
whiteflame,
Uh, okay, so there is no warning on Lemmings opinion in wrongfully calling me a LIAR because he thinks that I am not a Christian, of which is defamatory to my name and presence upon this forum? Part of the definition of the "invective" term that you use in the COC rules, is in fact relative to "insulting," another like he essentially did with me in calling me a LIAR.
1. Then Lemming accuses me of "Targeted Harassment" whereas my "discussion" with Public-Choice IS NOT HARRASSMENT as shown, but setting him straight biblically!
.
2. Then Lemming accused me of of spam because I had to continually correct "Public-Choice" relative to the Bible, which is NOT SPAM, but schooling him so he won't be so Bible Stupid in the future!
Okay, then if you are not here to determine who is right or wrong relative to the above defaming propositions from Lemming towards me, then the example of such activity can be continually used in the future within DEBATEART.
.
Calling someone a liar is not and has never been a personal attack. It relates specifically to what you say. It is also not part of my role as moderator to determine who is right and who is wrong, so I do not intercede in matters that others might view as "untruths". I am not here to defend your or anyone else's argument. I am not here to validate you or anyone else. So I'm not sure what you're expecting me to do, but none of what I see from Lemming warrants a warning.
.
white flame,
Uh, does "Lemming" get a warning as well in calling me a LIAR, and giving untruths towards me relative to my posts within this comment section, as decisively shown in my 4 propositions in my post #31?
https://www.debateart.com/debates/4987/comments/57192
.
.
"Public-Choice," the RUNAWAY from biblical axioms because he can't address them and remain intelligent looking in the aftermath! LOL!
YOUR PATHETIC “LITTLE BOY” RESPONSE TO MY POST #34 THAT YOU RUN AWAY FROM: “As usual. The fake televangelist using Christianity as a cover for their hatred couldn't answer a simple Bible question.”
Because of your blatant Bible STUPIDITY, you don’t realize that I did answer your question in my post #34 as Jesus setting the example to be able to abort any life within the womb. Maybe you should take an on line Reading Comprehension Class before you “try” to feebly understand my posts! Pricless Bible STUPIDITY on your part, duh!
.
YOUR COMICAL SYLLOGISM OF A BIBLE FOOL: “Murder is always wrong. Abortion is murder. Therefore Abortion is always wrong.”
Okay, then like I had shown in my post #34, then Jesus is the #1 ABORTIONIST of all time, and as a true Christian I have accepted this FACT, but you cannot, and have to run away from Biblical FACTS and hide from them, and then you want to call yourself a Christian in your ever so weak biography, NOT! ROFLOL!!!!
.
YOUR IRRELATIVE STATEMENT TO THE TOPIC AT HAND: “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.”
Huh, this has nothing to do with your Bible ignorance, other than to interject a non-sensical statement to “try” and make you biblically look smart, NOT!
.
YOUR RUNAWAY STATEMENT BECAUSE YOU CANNOT ACCEPT THE BIBLICAL AXIOMS THAT JESUS WAS A BRUTAL AND BLOODY SERIAL KILLER AS AN ABORTIONIST AS I HAVE SHOWN YOU IN THIS COMMENT SECTION: “So, now kindly piss off and spend more time in that Bible and less time spreading your disinformation.”
The irony is the fact that I spend my time in the Bible at your expense, and have forgotten more about it than you will ever learn from it in your lifetime, and this is why I have shown the membership and YOU, in how Bible STUPID you truly are! My information that you say is disinformation, is from the Bible in my posts to you, H-E-L-L-O, anybody home to today, obviously NOT! LOL!!!
.
To save yourself from further embarrassment in front of the membership, and Christianity, please for your sake, do the following:
1. Remove your Christian assumed status from your pitiful and weak biography, whereas, you are a “pseudo-christian” at best.
2. Enroll in an online “Grade-School” Reading Comprehension Class to be able to truly decipher my posts that you have to run away from and hide from them.
3. Do NOT enter a debate about abortion being murder, especially when you “think” you are a Christian, because Jesus as explicitly shown at your embarrassment, is the #1 ABORTIONIST of all time! Get it? Can you spell Christian H-Y-P-O-C-R-I-T-E? Sure you can!
4. Look for a “Children’s Religion Forum” that your Bible inept status would be more comfortable in instead of being at DEBATEART where you have absolutely no business being in this esteemed forum to begin with, understood? Here is an appropriate kids Christian forum for you: https://www.christianforums.com/forums/children-and-youth-ministry.648/
.
NEXT BLATANT BIBLE FOOL LIKE "PUBLIC-CHOICE" THAT REMOVES ONE FOOT FROM HIS MOUTH TO INSERT THE OTHER IN THIS COMMENT SECTION, WILL BE ...?
.
As usual. The fake televangelist using Christianity as a cover for their hatred couldn't answer a simple Bible question.
The answer, Mr. Thomas, is that it is impossible. Murder is always wrong. Abortion is murder. Therefore Abortion is always wrong.
You shall love your neighbor as yourself.
You shall not murder.
Abortions violate both of these.
So, now kindly piss off and spend more time in that Bible and less time spreading your disinformation.
Also, I didn't bring whiteflame into this. Lemming did.
You can justify it however much you want to yourself, but you know this is against site rules and I shouldn't have to delve into the why of it. Whether you feel it is warranted does not make these insults appropriate. Attack what they say as much as you want, but steer clear of personal attacks.
.
white flame,
YOUR QUOTE TO ME BEING THE ONLY TRUE CHRISTIAN UPON THIS WEBSITE: " Consider this a formal warning. Insults like "blithering idiot" and "dumb ass" are strictly against the CoC. If we see this again in any context, there will be consequences."
Are you telling me that I am not to speak the truth when dealing with the Bible Stupids®️ within this Religion Forum in calling them what they truly are, as in the case of "blithering idiots and dumb asses?
.
Jesus tells me to bring the TRUTH to my posts in His inspired words in the following passages, especially in calling certain members in question what they truly are because of their Bible stupidity!
"Do your best to present yourself to God as one approved, a worker who has no need to be ashamed, RIGHTLY HANDLING THE WORD OF TRUTH." (2 Timothy 2:15)
"Therefore, having put away falsehood, LET EACH ONE OF YOU SPEAK THE TRUTH with his neighbor, for we are members one of another." (Ephesians 4:25)
"Little children, let us not love in word or talk but in deed AND IN TRUTH." (1 John 3:18)
"These are the things that you shall do: SPEAK THE TRUTH TO ONE ANOTHER; render in your gates judgments that are true and make for peace;" (Zechariah 8:16)
"TRUTHFUL LIPS ENDURE FOREVER, but a lying tongue is but for a moment." (Proverbs 12:19)
.
YOUR COC RULES: “Unwarranted systemic vulgarity and invectives, which may include off topic personal attacks and/or hate speech, are subject to disciplinary actions.”
My calling the members in question in what they truly are as I have shown, IS NOT UNWARRANTED because of their CONTINUED Bible ignorant posts! When is enough, enough, where I am supposed to “coddle them” for being so God Damned Bible Stupid?
Okay, if you want me to go totally against Jesus in Him wanting me TO TELL THE TRUTH at all times, especially to certain members in factually being blithering idiots as shown, then so be it!
.
++++++ REMEMBER, it is one aspect to literally call the person a "blithering idiot," but when I call them Bible Stupid or such, that is NOT "personally" calling them stupid! ++++++
.
"Public-Choice," the RUNAWAY from biblical axioms because he can't address them and remain intelligent looking in the aftermath! LOL!
First thing, you had to run and cry and whimper to the moderator whiteflame because I was calling you names that you outright deserved for being so God damned Bible Stupid! You do NOT have the wherewithal to call yourself a Christian for being so Bible inept, especially when I bring forth Jesus in being the #1 ABORTIONIST known to mankind, where you have to run away and hide from this FACT nder your bed because you are too embarrassed to discuss this biblical axiom! LOL!!!
YOUR STUPID QUOTE ONCE AGAIN: "If murder is a violation of the 10 Commandments, then why are you advocating for murdering babies?"
Simply put so your inept brain can hopefully understand this time, is the FACT that since Jesus was the brutal abortionist of all time, then He set an example for his Hebrew Creation to do the same if need be in aborting life within the womb, understand yet? Maybe? One of many passages where Jesus states He has set an example for us to follow His words is shown herewith; " For I have given you an example, that you also should do just as I have done to you." (John 13:15). The "example" is that Jesus was a brutal abortionist, and when He says "what I have done to you" is relative to Him being said abortionist to His creation as shown within the scriptures! UNDERSTAND?!!!
Once again you are totally Bible Stupid because there are more than the 10 commandments that you keep bringing forth, there are a total of 613 Commandments, so get this biblical axiom straight! Now, if you want to continue to be Bible inept in front of the membership, then so be it at your embarrassing expense.
Furthermore, at your expense once again, many fertilized eggs are never implanted in the uterine wall and are flushed out of the body with the woman's next period, and since Jesus controls ALL THINGS (Proverbs 16:33), He allows this abortion of a zygote to happen, of which is another reason that Jesus remains the #1 abortionist of all times!!!
Now, for you to say that abortion is murder, and when Jesus is the #1 abortionist, do you really want to bring forth your stupid debate whereas you are a HYPOCRITICAL Christian because Jesus as God brutally murders zygotes, fetus' and babies in the book of Hosea 9:11-16, and in His Great Flood, and in a woman's menstruation period! GET IT YOU BIBLE FOOL?
.
AGAIN, IS THERE ANYONE THAT WANTS TO STEP FORTH AND HELP "PUBLIC-CHOICE" ACTUALLY LEARN THE BIBLE AXIOMS RELATING TO JESUS AND ABORTION, SO HE WON'T BE SO EMBARRASSED IN FRONT OF THE MEMBERSHIP IN THE FUTURE? ANYONE?
.
"What part of my post #24 didn't you understand?"
Basically how none of it had to do with my question to you, honestly.
So I'll ask again. If murder is a violation of the 10 Commandments, then why are you advocating for murdering babies?
Consider this a formal warning. Insults like "blithering idiot" and "dumb ass" are strictly against the CoC. If we see this again in any context, there will be consequences.
.
Lemming,
YOUR WRONGFUL QUOTE TO ME BEING A TRUE CHRISTIAN!!!: "Personally, I 'think Mr.BrotherD.Thomas is pretending to be a Christian, and mocking Christianity and Christians in parody. (Though I 'could be wrong)"
1. Where in the hell do you get the authority to call anyone upon this Religion Forum a LIAR relative to me not being a TRUE Christian?! YOU, Mr. Lemmng, are breaking DEBATEART COC rules herewith: "If a user’s content includes unwarranted (or excessively toxic) systemic vulgarity and 'INVECTIVES,' which may include 'OFF TOPIC PERSONAL ATTACKS' and/or hate speech, moderation shall:"
.
2. YOUR IDIOTIC QUOTE WHEN ONE IS IN DISCUSSION WITH ANOTHER MEMBER: "Targeted harassment of any member prohibited, as is inciting others to do so at your behest."
HELLO, you blithering idiot, when in discussion with the Bible Stupid fool "Public-Choice," of course it is "targeted" towards his total Bible ineptness! 2+2=4!
.
3. YOUR CONTINUED STEPPING IN POO QUOTE: "Unwarranted systemic vulgarity and invectives, which may include off topic personal attacks and/or hate speech, are subject to disciplinary actions."
YES, I call a spade a spade, even if I am in South Central Los Angeles, and I act as Jesus did in the Temple where He dramatically made everyone of the money-changers and the ungodly to leave His Fathers House, at least I don't make a "whip of chords" like Jesus did to beat these ungodly people in leaving! (John 2:14-15). Jesus as set an example for me to act the way I do, DO YOU HAVE A PROBLEM WITH ME ACTING AS JESUS DID ABOVE? HUH?
.
4. YOUR GRADE-SCHOOL POST OF ACCUSING ME OF SPAM: "Spam is prohibited, and any overtly repetitive nonsensical posts are considered spam." - DART COC
WRONG you hell bound ungodly ATHEIST! With me continually correcting the dumbfounded "Public-Choice" relative to the Bible is NOT SPAM! Just because "Public-Choice" is so God Damned Bible STUPID, and refuses to address my godly posts to him, other than to run away and hide from them under his mommies apron, is the reason that I have to remind him again and again of this fact, understood dumb ass ATHEIST?
.
YOUR CONTINUED WRONGFUL QUOTE: "Even if 'you Public-Choice have thick skin, I do not think it is right to let such individuals as Mr.BrotherD.Thomas have free reign,
To go about insulting and targeting users"
No wonder you are a hell bound ATHEIST, and that is you are so stupid with your comments! AGAIN, I am NOT insulting "Public-Choice" when I have to correct his outright Bible stupidity and running away from my posts to him! I am not TARGETING the Bible fool "Public-Choice" when I have to continue to respond to him, GET IT?! H-E-L-L-O!
.
++++++++++++++++ Lemming the dumbfounded and Hell bound Atheist, YOU ARE HARASSING ME relative to the DEBATEART COC RULES as shown in your post #28 by LIEING, and making untruthful comments about me, and if you continue, I will report you to the appropriate moderators of the prestigious Religion Forum, DO YOU COMPREHEND my statement to you?! +++++++++++++++
.
NEXT OVERLY DUMB ATHEIST LIKE "LEMMING" THAT TURNS INTO BEING AN HARASSER THAT HE IS ALLEGEDLY AGAINST IN THE FIRST PLACE, WILL BE ...?
.
.
"Public-Choice," the RUNAWAY from biblical axioms because he can't address them and remain intelligent looking in the aftermath! LOL!
What part of my post #24 didn't you understand? https://www.debateart.com/debates/4987/comments/57182
.
You still haven't explained to me how abortion is ok when murder is wrong. Sounds to me that you are biblically illiterate, and running away from the truth, and not me.
Oh I would say myself , that Mr.BrotherD.Thomas has broken the CoC, not you.
Personally, I 'think Mr.BrotherD.Thomas is pretending to be a Christian, and mocking Christianity and Christians in parody.
(Though I 'could be wrong)
1,
"You may not impersonate individuals, groups, or organizations in a manner that is either intended to or likely to deceive others. Parody accounts are acceptable, so long it is clear that they are parodies and do not parody other site users." - DART COC
Alas I cannot 'prove this,
Hence the not 'clear it is parody.
2,
"Targeted harassment of any member prohibited, as is inciting others to do so at your behest. This includes wishing or hoping that someone and/or their loved ones experiences physical harm." - DART COC
"Jesus and I are going to have a lot of fun with this pseudo-christian named "Public-Choice," but it will be at his embarrassing expense in front of the membership for sure!"
Mr.BrotherD.Thomas #18
To me sounds that he's targeting you, intending and 'trying to embarrass you.
3,
"Unwarranted systemic vulgarity and invectives, which may include off topic personal attacks and/or hate speech, are subject to disciplinary actions." - DART COC
Invectives is defined by Webster as "insulting or abusive language." It can also refer to an abusive expression or speech.
"Dolts, Stupid, Fool, Buffoonery, DUMB ASS, DUMBFOUNDED, NEWB, CRYBABY, sniveling"
Are all 'repeatedly used by Mr.BrotherD.Thomas in this 'one comment section alone.
4,
"Spam is prohibited, and any overtly repetitive nonsensical posts are considered spam." - DART COC
Their posts are generic and ever the same, spamming paragraphs of insults.
. . . .
I say again,
Even if 'you Public-Choice have thick skin,
I do not think it is right to let such individuals as Mr.BrotherD.Thomas have free reign,
To go about insulting and targeting users.
Observe his words to swordburial17 here,
"Heads up, we're going to have a lot of fun with YOU like we did with the other disgusting camel herder Muslim tigerlord, where you will now take his place, so "chain up" because your ride in this forum is going to be real bumpy at your expense!" - BrotherD.Thomas #45 https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/9532-non-fallacious-defenses-of-muhammad?page=2