- cross-posted to:
- wehrhaftedemokratie@feddit.de
- cross-posted to:
- wehrhaftedemokratie@feddit.de
You must log in or register to comment.
So let it be written
So let it be done
I’m sent here by the chosen one
So let it be written
So let it be done
To kill the first-born Pharaoh son
I’m creeping death
Thank you, I havent heard this song since high school. \…/ Metallica baby
“I think I’m done”. Yes you are
I don’t think you started.
That’s all you do? I have sex with anti-abortion protestors. They switch sides quickly.
Ha they switch sides?! Nah they’re just the same people as everyone else on that side, (except the few who truly wouldn’t get one) they’re “my abortion is the exception that proves the rule”
just an observation: the two scenarios aren’t the same from the poaition of thw protestor.
she says that her god has a plan for all the babies. her contention is that abortion messes with that ‘plan’.
the argument that her god killed the first-born of egyptians is not relevant here. while it displays cruelty, if anything, it supports her position.
her god had a ‘plan’ for those killings as well. her premise here is not that ‘killing’ of foetuses is cruel, it’s that doing so messes with this ‘plan’. so should – in her eyes – saving those first-borns in egypt.
now, i am pro-choice and not allowing safe access to abortion is an act of inhumanity for me – and I’m the staunchest of atheists around as well as a person not brought up around this woman’s faith – but the interviewer here has got the wrong end of the horse.
I don’t think so. Maybe gods plan for that baby was abortion.
Holds up to me.
Or maybe god had no plan for the aborted fetuses and that’s why they were aborted. Every person aborting a fetus is doing gods will.
yep, absolutely, and this would have been a valid counterargument from the presenter. to attack the relevance of the ‘plan’ than the cruelty aspect.
this is exactly what my OC intended.
How can abortion mess with God’s plan if the person who did it exists in accordance with God’s plan? Is there some arbitrary point at which the plan for each baby stops being God’s and suddenly becomes it’s own? I don’t think you can meaningfully apply logic within an illogical paradigm, however narrowly you want to define her specific argument
yep, absolutely, and this would have been a valid counterargument from the presenter. to attack the relevance of the ‘plan’ than the cruelty aspect.
this is exactly what my OC intended.
I can’t tell if you’re being deliberately disingenuous or just trying to do a “well, ackshully,” but that’s not responsive to the presented situation.
He wasn’t arguing that god doesn’t know the pre-embryo or whatever this lady thinks. I’ve talked to catholics who think that there’s a queue of babies in heaven waiting to be born.
What the guy is saying is that god obviously doesn’t care whether they die or not. The god-concept she’s advocating for kills kids left and right, 24/7. The kids in Egypt was good. That’s some Charlton Heston and Yul Brenner shit.
Of course, for sheer bloody-mindedness, you can’t beat the flood, where god killed everyone everywhere all at once. I’m sure he knew all their names. He just decided to smoke the whole planet because he was mildly disappointed in what some people were doing. Then there’s all the bits where infants are dashed to pieces against rocks. And the bit where an embryo is not a person but rather a piece of property of the father, where killing it isn’t murder but just a property crime.
So our assumption must logically be that god wants those poor babies dead. He set everything up for it, and he even kills slightly over half of the babies in the womb himself anyway. All of those non-implanted fertilized eggs? Bam! Dead baby, but I’m sure god knew it’s name.
So OP demonstrated that god’s plan is just to whack the kid. He whacks the kid well over half the time.
Plus god knowing the kid’s name ahead of time kinda fucks with the whole predestination vs free will, I think.
yep, absolutely, and this would have been a valid counterargument from the presenter. to attack the relevance of the ‘plan’ than the cruelty aspect.
this is exactly what my OC intended.
deleted by creator
re: 2
yep, absolutely, and this would have been a valid counterargument from the presenter. to attack the relevance of the ‘plan’ than the cruelty aspect.
this is exactly what my OC intended.
I guess the question then is why aren’t the abortions part of god’s plan? Because the Egyptian case clearly shows that this isn’t actually black/white issue to him.
yep, absolutely, and this would have been a valid counterargument from the presenter. to attack the relevance of the ‘plan’ than the cruelty aspect.
this is exactly what my OC intended.
