3RU7AL

Things in your imagination do not exist in a real, concrete and verifiable manner.

Are we modifying our description of existence now? If they don't exist in a "real, concrete, and verifiable manner," then do they exist at all? 

No. Logically, consensus and validity are not intertwined. 

I've been having an internal debate for years with dualism, but have yet to come to a resolution. 

I would say that objective reality is the only true reality.

Imaginary and purely abstract concepts can demonstrate nothing--nothing physical or material at least.

They don't exist, right? How does the nonexistent interact with and influence the existent and vice versa?

Is there a nexus? Who or what is this nexus? And what does that mean for the nexus? Does it exist or does it not exist? Or is it entirely irrelevant? 

How can that be? Mathematics is make-believe.

How can you be so certain that these principles were used if they're imaginary?

Aren't you just looking at a proverbial inkblot of matter and "naming" it a "computer" and saying that you "used mathematical principles"? What use does your imagination have in anything other than perpetuating the unjustifiable folly of your imagination? 

We have Rabbinic exegesis to glean from.

I'm just wondering why the subject of having a soul would necessitate an ancient rule book.

This is in distinct contrast to your Qualitative experience of believing in god(s).

The contrast is rooted in your subjective values, and that's fine for you. It makes it neither consistent nor less fallacious. 

HowEVer, they have demonstrable EFFICACY.

Efficacious toward what?

p: I can believe Nanabozho (the great rabbit) exists.

q: Therefore, I do believe Nanabozho (the great rabbit) exists. 

This seems indistinguishable from pure imagination.

Seem is not an argument; seem is your impression.

MP: Numbers don't exist.

Mp: Mathematics does not exist

C: Therefore, Scientific Laws don't exist.

You're materialists.

Perhaps technically, but Gnostic has christian connotations that I don't want to be associated with

I am a theist of no particular faith or religion. I believe in a personal god, due to religious and spiritual experiences. I used to be an atheist materialist until I had my spiritual experiences.

p: I can believe God exists.

q: Therefore, I do believe God exists. 

The conclusion does not logically follow from the premise.

Yes, a version of me influenced by your perception of me as "an idiot" would exist, if only in your mind. But it still exists. The logic is not that difficult to comprehend. 

"Mere Statement" = "Naked Assertion"

"Because I can" is not the argument. It's an a priori statement which serves as the basis, rationale, and justification of my belief. Semantics while sometimes useful mean nothing if you don't grasp the context in which an author of a statement submits said statement.

I see, you prefer naked assertion.  Thanks for clearing that up.

It's not a "naked assertion." it requires no more proof than my mere statement.

Arguing "harsh rules for harsh times" is SITUATIONAL ETHICS.  The whole ideological bent of Christianity hinges on hypothetical Objective Morality.

Are you implying the two are incompatible?

Would it be fair to say you believe, "you can't disprove an afterlife, therefore it might be (or probably is) real"?

Don't project your fallacious logic in some non sequitur. Fallacious logic is fallacious logic even when the argument is inverted. But, I already know where you're headed with this, so if you seek to know that which is fair to state about my beliefs, I've already said it, "Why do I believe a deity, specifically God, exists? Because I can." That is my basis, rationale, and justification. 

Pure sophistry. Regurgitating converse arguments as if anyone here but you proposed that the "lack" of anything substantiated an argument is not just inept but also demonstrative of your "lack" of understanding of your own statement:

That's logically fallacious reasoning. "Lack" of evidence is not proof regardless of how you disguise it in these semantic stunts. 

...whether there is evidence that God exists.

What evidence, specifically? You are being vague.

That is a lot to go through.

I don't want to spend time on it.

Agree to disagree I guess. 

But the importance for me is on whether the Christian believes that the rules and values reflected in those passages are still valid and applicable today.

ALL the evidence.

I consider myself a theist, although sometimes I could technically be called an agnostic. If you asked me if I believed in God, my honest answer would be yes, it is my gut intuition, it is based on religious and spiritual experience. I believe in a personal God, who listens to us. I don't know the nature of God. I haven't figured it out. 

There may not be a current "right" one. The right religion may not exist yet. Perhaps it existed sometime in the past. Perhaps no one can figure it out, because God is elusive. 

No because that would require too many contradictions.

So you've decided before hand that all religions are wrong. 

If they don't nor have access to this information then it is not their fault. Fault lies with people who know what they are doing is bad yet they still do it. 

De facto protection for abortion stems from a right to privacy. [LINK]

I am not advocating for the against abortion that leads to more privacy concerns.

A slippery slope fallacy is still a slippery slope fallacy.

Free speech is not actually defended in the United States because people are not able to simply state they want to murder someone but that hasn't led to other violations because of it.

Republicans will have the power to do so anyway and by the looks of it they will remain in power given the next election cycle so they are still going to do it. I am not for that. Doesn't mean there can't be a system where the US has an anti-abortion stance yet maintain other privacy. 

Fact: the rights of citizenship begin at birth.

Should it stay a right or are you going to cower behind muh law instead of making an argument?

It is an unpleasant choice that is less-bad than many of the alternatives.

Oh so you were triggered over my framing and still want to discuss. Okay. 

I appreciate your dime-store psychoanalysis.

Worth more than your cold takes. Muh hypocrite. Muh liar. Muh because the law said so.

I'm pretty sure it's a private matter between a woman and her doctor.

I have already shown a therapist example and you would have to show that either a fetus is not a life or privacy is more valuable. 

Are you suggesting we are in danger of running out of children?

No. In order for there to be people to take part in a democracy we require people. 

Please dial back the hyperbole.  You are free to make as many babies as you see fit.

It wasn't hyperbole. It is what would actually occur or you think non-existent hyperbole then I can't help you.

Calling me out for the hyperbole yet you started it? Isn't that hypocritical?

You said: 

Suggesting that every embryo should be granted the full rights and protections of citizenship from conception essentially criminalizes miscarriage and eliminates all personal privacy.

"eliminate all personal privacy"

Hypocrite and a liar. 

Are you assaulting or murdering a person in a foreign sovereign territory?

Fetus. What do you consider a person then?

Here's the problem. [LINK]

A crooked system is a crooked system. Do you think I am for a crooked system?

Please provide an example of something that happens inside a woman's body that is NOT her business.

An abortion.

It requires the business of lets say planned parenthood given the authority to do so by the government.

Her business is only granted by the state. She wouldn't have it without the state and even if the state gave her the right she still has to use the facilities given by the government to commit to an abortion.

If it was her business she wouldn't need the government to make it happen but she does.

What happens inside a woman's body (sovereign territory) is her business.

What do you consider sovereign territory?

Why should what she want be valued more than what is inside of her?

Being anti-abortion = anti patient-doctor confidentiality.

If I said I was going to murder a bunch of people to a therapist and carefully laid out how I would do it. Are you telling me the therapist would not speak to the proper authorities regarding what I just said?

You would have to demonstrate how anti-privacy in this specific [RED HERRING] context is more valuable than a life either by showing a fetus isn't a life or anti-privacy is more valuable.

It does not really matter whether a woman is pro- or anti-abortion. In states like Tennessee, with its freshly passed anti-abortion amendment, you can be arrested for having a miscarriage.

Am I supposed to be for this or something? I am not given the definition that is "spontaneous" or "unplanned". If a miscarriage is preventable it is not a miscarriage.

An alarming number of women are being arrested, prosecuted and jailed just for losing their pregnancies. In addition to anti-abortion measures, you can thank the advance of “personhood” fights for embryos, fetuses and even fertilized eggs for that. 

Guess more filler. What were you trying to show with this again?

Most miscarriages are preventable.  (IFF) an embryo is a citizen (THEN) a preventable miscarriage is manslaughter.

Any evidence?

The definition states: the spontaneous or unplanned expulsion of a fetus from the womb before it is able to survive independently.

So if you were proving anything you would be proving that it wasn't a miscarriage instead was intentional fetus killing or something.

The Supreme Court’s decision finding a right to privacy arose in a 1965 case involving the right of a married couple to use contraception called Griswold v. Connecticut.  But the right has become responsible for court decisions supporting adult rights to sexual intimacy, to gay marriage, and to the rights of parents to make family decisions, such as whether their children are home-schooled or go to religious schools. The right to privacy also supports an adult’s right to decide their medical care, and an adult’s right to die, by rejecting medical care in certain circumstances. This medical care area also implicates the rights and autonomy of the physically disabled and the mentally ill. Further, the right to privacy can support artificial insemination. And transgender individuals have used privacy to argue that schools cannot ban them from certain bathrooms, and that government must generally support their gender identity choices. 

Where was the part that being against abortion impacts this again?

I'm pretty certain they call themselves "pro-choice".  Nobody is advocating for mass abortions.  Nobody wants people to have abortions.

They are simply arguing that it should be an option.  It is an unpleasant choice that is less-bad than many of the alternatives.

Clearly semantics

or I don't know you are triggered by some framing.

I am pretty sure that the majority democratic stance is if they need an abortion then they should have it which goes for every single abortion occurring right now and in the past. 

Mostly because the rights of citizenship begin at birth.

Doesn't mean that right is just or should be upheld. Do you have something more to go on?

Every human life is precious (after they're born).

Why make the distinction when they are born?

There is no "right to an abortion".  Nobody is "pro-abortion".

Do I need to quote democratic presidential nominees on right to an abortion to take my claim actually hold anything or do you realize how easy it is for me to do?

Every single relevant democratic nominee is pro-abortion as in they want people to have a right for an abortion given they support it.  

The original ruling simply affirmed doctor-patient confidentiality.  A woman and her doctor should be free to make private decisions about medical procedures and treatments.

Who says being pro or against abortion runs the risk of patient confidentiality? Can you demonstrate how it is actually impacted by either being pro or against abortion?

Suggesting that every embryo should be granted the full rights and protections of citizenship from conception essentially criminalizes miscarriage and eliminates all personal privacy.

Miscarriage is used to state something that wasn't the fault of the women occurred. We don't use it to blame women because of what they do not have control over.

"eliminates all personal privacy" Do you consider this an exaggeration or I am actually not seeing how everything is lost because of it?

Are you pro-privacy or anti-privacy?

Whether you are pro or anti abortion it doesn't impact the privacy.

Unless of course you selectively frame the discussion like what if the women wanted to get an abortion but lacked the privacy from the state given the law that states any kind of asking for abortion will be reported? Bearing in mind being against abortion doesn't equal anti-privacy.

There's also a matter of jurisdiction.

Like with anything that is connected to law. What is your point?

What happens inside a woman's body is her business.

No it isn't. It never was it never will be.

Whatever I do that has an impact on another does require you know the proper authority to get involved. If lets say I assault or murder a person.

I require a jail about what I did given the states value of life.

It might be just implied but the government does have a part to play in bringing in the new generation.

If it didn't democracy would fail given everyone would be dead.