Ask Lemmy
A Fediverse community for open-ended, thought provoking questions
Please don't post about US Politics. If you need to do this, try [email protected]
Rules: (interactive)
1) Be nice and; have fun
Doxxing, trolling, sealioning, racism, and toxicity are not welcomed in AskLemmy. Remember what your mother said: if you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all. In addition, the site-wide Lemmy.world terms of service also apply here. Please familiarize yourself with them
2) All posts must end with a '?'
This is sort of like Jeopardy. Please phrase all post titles in the form of a proper question ending with ?
3) No spam
Please do not flood the community with nonsense. Actual suspected spammers will be banned on site. No astroturfing.
4) NSFW is okay, within reason
Just remember to tag posts with either a content warning or a [NSFW] tag. Overtly sexual posts are not allowed, please direct them to either [email protected] or [email protected].
NSFW comments should be restricted to posts tagged [NSFW].
5) This is not a support community.
It is not a place for 'how do I?', type questions.
If you have any questions regarding the site itself or would like to report a community, please direct them to Lemmy.world Support or email [email protected]. For other questions check our partnered communities list, or use the search function.
Reminder: The terms of service apply here too.
Partnered Communities:
Logo design credit goes to: tubbadu
view the rest of the comments
What's inconsistent about it? My views are basically "killing people bad". Is killing people being bad purely a religious belief?
Your argument is that killing people is bad (under most circumstances). When asked where you would put the line in human development, you name criteria like pain, heartbeat and visual similarity with fully developed human. But when asked about abortion you put the line at implantation, so a blastocyst, which is void of all the criteria you named yourself. That's rather inconsistent, wouldn't you agree?
I'm not a biologist. Lol.
You don't say. But again, since you don't recognize basic errors in your logic and happen to be christian - I colloquially use the term christian fundamentalist.
Not really, you are picking down into the details here. I never tried to base an opinion on at what point in extremely early embryo development does life start, but that it definitely doesn't start the moment the baby leaves the womb. I simply feel that it isn't right for us to end that life in there deliberately unless there are circumstances such as the mother's life being in danger. I definitely know for a fact that anything after 21 weeks is not okay, as a child did survive that long out of a mother's womb. However as technology progresses, we will find that the period will get earlier and earlier. I don't think we should screw around disposing of embryos and such during the development of embryos/foetuses. It's not right for us to toy around with life like that, whether it be euthanasia, abortion or the death penalty. Human life should never be taken away lightly or unnecessarily, no matter what the stage.
Almost there, but I take it. Don't you think that it's not the best things to impose rules on others based on feelings? Ever thought about other people feeling differently and their feelings being as valid as yours?
Like I said, christian compassion - let people suffer whether or not they want it. I know Jesus was into some kinky masochism, but the key was that he has chosen his suffering himself, he didn't chose suffering for others.
Yes, we shouldn't impose rules on others based on feelings. That's why we shouldn't take their lives from them without their consent. Abortion isn't the mother's right to choose, along with the death penalty and involuntary euthanasia (whether be coerced or otherwise)
But you define when cells becomes humans based on your feelings, even admitted to have little idea about biology - but jet you feel confident enough to impose those believes into an extreme personal and intimate decision of others. If abortion is not mothers right to choose, it's definitely not yours. The same goes for euthanasia - it's everyones right to not suffer anymore, not your decision to make.
The mother can choose whether or not to get pregnant. If a mother wanted to smother her child after birth, it wouldn't be okay. I don't see how abortion is any different
It's different since you claim that a couple of cells around implantation are the same as a born child. Faith not even once.
I didn't say it was the same. Stop being disingenuous. They are different in the same way a newborn and an adult are different.
It's so funny since even in your response, claiming that I'm disingenuous yous till compere a couple of cells to a newborn. In the end you value the well being of a couple of cells over that of a women. By the way since - Jesus was a Jew, he was pro abortion, it's a fundamental right for women in Judaism.
Jesus was pro abortion? 🤣 That's a new take! And you're calling me disingenuous
He was a Jew, Judaism has a much more liberal stance on abortion. But that is more of a joke. Since our discussion kind of runs into nowhere - with you still claiming few cells are more important than a women, and not given any further information on why.
Source for Judaism having a much more liberal stance on Abortion?
I didn't say they are more important. They have equal importance. A woman's choice to an abortion isn't worth more than that life.
Wikipedia? Like that's a simple question just a google search away.
Apologies that's, correct. But sure, being equal to a few cells is much better, not demeaning for women at all besides being rather silly.
Wikipedia isn't really a source. It seems you cannot back up your claim.
All human life is equally valuable. Whether they be young, old, black, white, male, female, etc. There's not really much more I have to say on this specific topic. We can beat around the bush all day on terminology, etc. But a life is a life, and we shouldn't have the authority to take it. I cannot speak to Atheism, but I have seen Atheists talk about valuing life as well and finding killing wrong without needing a religion. So I don't see how when I say killing human life is wrong, whether it be a foetus or a fully grown trans person, you call me a "fundamentalist", as if believing in the fundamentals of Christianity is a bad thing (although you don't seem to mean it in that way)
I'm still intrigued with where you're going with the Jesus being pro abortion issue. It was a pretty wild claim to make.
Sure only bible is a good source. Just a tip, Wikipedia has sources on most claims you can check yourself, which makes it rather useful.
We already established that you don't give life absolute value, since you would save mothers life through abortion if it was in danger.
We already been there - you are ok with abortion before implantation so you make actually have a treshold where you start consider a few cells life or human how ever you want to name it.
Already explained that point.
Not as wild as a few cell being as valuable as a whole ass developed human. And also I absolutely believe that Jesus would be pro abortion - but that's anyone's guess.
When did I say only the Bible is a good source? You literally just said "wikipedia" in general, beforehand telling me to "google it". You clearly cannot back it up yourself. Because it's untrue.
Also, do you believe that Jesus is God?
It's was joke.
I don't care to back it up, if you curious you can check it out - if not, don't.
Nope. But I like the mythological figure of Jesus and quite some of his teachings and philosophies. In my book he was a great philosopher of his time, who found some rather interesting answers to questions that we all ask.
So basically, you think Jesus is pro abortion, something He never claimed to be, but don't think that He is God, something He did claim to be?
I can go outside and find you couple of guys claiming to be god, does not make it any more true than claims made about Jesus (you surly know that as most religion founders he didn't leave a written record of his teaching, they were all written down after his death by his followers).
Absolutely, based on my understanding of his philosophy and since he was a smart guy he would also get basic biology, so no troubles there.
Were they prophecised about, performed miracles and rose from the dead?
So it's no longer because of Jewish law, but because "Jesus was a smart guy and I'm a smart guy so he must obviously agree with me"
I can find you people claiming to be and do all that stuff. By the way, if you believe that Jesus literally rose from the dead and performed miracles - you are indeed a christian fundamentalist, since you take the bible (at least the new testament) literally.
This are two separate points:
Jesus was Jewish is more of a joke, something I personally always though of as funny.
First, that's not what I wrote. Second what I actually wrote is close to my opinion on what Jesus would think. Which is as valuable as anyone's guess. And more of an anecdote than an argument.
No? You're just a Christian...
Unless of course your definition of Christian fundamentalist is someone who believes in the fundamentals of Christianity, but that's just an unnecessary thing to add on to the term "Christian". In that case, then Christian Fundamentalism is the largest world religion.
Nope, there are Christians that don't take the Bible literally. And no you are not the judge of who can call themselves Christian.
Then I'm a pro-choice who believes Abortion is wrong and shouldn't be legal. Because I believe contraception should be legal
You can call you what ever you want, I'm not to stuck on definitions. Does not change that I think your stance on abortion does not make to much sense.
So then why do you keep trying to define me as a "Christian fundamentalist" when your definition of that is basically someone who's just a normal Nicene Christian, and not a heretical offshoot?
Because that's how that word is used? People who take Bible/teachings literally. Maybe you are not aware but at least in Europe a lot of Christians don't take the whole thing literal. I have good friend who is Catholic but she does not take the Bible and the teachings literal.
I literally live in Europe. And what do you mean by the "whole thing literal", would that include taking the creation story as literal 6 24 hour long days and the patriarch ages literally? Because if so, then I don't take the whole Bible literally and I am not a fundamentalist.
Does your good friend believe that Jesus physically and literally resurrected?
No, she also does not believe in a bearded guy who created everything, which makes sense since she is a biologist.
In general fundamentalism refers to people taking religious texts and teaching as literal. You take the story of Jesuses resurrection and wonders literal ( at least that is my impression) - so to me you are a Christian fundamentalist. Which is just a fancy way to say that you take the story of Jesus literal.
Also our dialogue might get world record for the use of the word literal.
So in what way is she "Catholic" if she doesn't believe in God 👁️👄👁️
People believe in god in quite different ways. Your literal interpretation of Jesuses life is not the only possibility.
Yeah, and those different ways are called religions, and the more refined thinking is called denominations. You just said she was Roman Catholic, which is not only Nicene Christian, not only a denomination, but a set and structured organisation which definitely does require it's adherents to believe in God, among many other things including Jesus literally rising from the dead. Which is the majority belief within Christianity, in fact it's a main foundation of it.
Muslims believe in Jesus. Some Hindus do as well. Doesn't make them Christian.
So you are not only arbiter on when life begins, cells are considered humans, but also on who is Christian and who not - for someone following Jesus you are really into judging.
Want to guess who said these?
I am not the arbiter of these things, but God is. Jesus makes it clear you must believe in God.
And why shoule we be the arbiter of morality either? We managed to gaslight ourselves into thinking that slavery was okay, execution, lobotomies, various wars, genocide, etc.
Sure if you chose to take the words literally - but that's kind of the point of the whole conversation.
And you do make yourself an arbiter - the moment you say that someone is not a true Christian.
So why are you an arbiter of morality despite all what you say?
I'm literally just echoing facts. If I said the sky is blue, does that make me the arbiter of the colour of the sky? Of course not.
Dang, thanks I finally got how Christians are often so judgemental - you guys are thinking that you're stating facts not passing judgement. That conversation was rather useful after all.