Understanding the Violence in Islam

no true Scotsmen

Abrahamic religion, you know, the one with the mosques...

Moderators: Blip, DarthHelmet86

Re: Understanding the Violence in Islam

#281  Postby Thomas Eshuis » Oct 06, 2015 12:56 pm

Quas, the ammount of Christians that follow Leviticus is completely irrelevant. Some some of which bomb abortion clinics.
Just like some Muslims follow the hatefull parts of the Quran and some of those commit suicide attacks.

And you can stuff your silly attempts at mind reading. I am not trying to exonerate anyone.
I have also, repeatedly pointed out that I make no claim as to which religion is more violent.
Nor have I implicated non-Christians.
You're continuing the same pathetic and dishonest behaviour of misrepresentation and straw-manning Peter Brown was engaging in.
I advise you to stop.
"Respect for personal beliefs = "I am going to tell you all what I think of YOU, but don't dare retort and tell what you think of ME because...it's my personal belief". Hmm. A bully's charter and no mistake."
User avatar
Thomas Eshuis
 
Name: Thomas Eshuis
Posts: 30879
Age: 31
Male

Country: Netherlands
European Union (eur)
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: Understanding the Violence in Islam

#282  Postby Rachel Bronwyn » Oct 06, 2015 12:58 pm

quas wrote:
Rachel Bronwyn wrote:It's born. It has rights.

I feel the logic is tenous there. What do we mean by "born"? Mere exposure to earth's atmosphere?


Legally, this is what's been decided upon, yes.

Delivering a non-viable fetus and having it die very shortly thereafter is not murder. It was non-viable and therefore providing it with any care would be futile.

Okay, I can agree to that, as long as we can know that the fetus would definitely be non-viable. But what if there's degrees of uncertainty. A fetus predicted to be non-viable turns out to be a healthy baby.


This is why fetuses which are in all likelihood non-viable but there's a smidgen of chance, given extensive medical care, they may be, are afforded care: because, legally, they're people and denying a person lifesaving care is not something we do. Even if it only might be viable, we treat it.

The viability of babies born at 22 weeks is minimal but we still expend enormous amounts of effort on them because that minimal chance they are viable exists.

You can actively kill a fetus in utero. You can't a non-viable or viable baby.

So the distinction between fetus and baby is that a baby is born and fetus not yet born.


Yes.

But what if the fetus is born accidentally? For example, in the case of water breaking due to the woman having an accidental fall. I mean, by sheer accident, a fetus suddenly becomes "born" and turns into a baby.


Then viability determines whether it receives care, not whether it's inhabiting another person's body.

I think this demonstrates a very tenous link between born and not yet born.


I don't, given viability is now the determining factor.

Sometimes in a miscarriage the fetus is born alive but has a 0% chance of survival given it's been born prior to a point at which, under any circumstances, it could possibly be viable. It immediately dies of asphyxiation. It's very sad. No one attempts intubation to "save" the baby though. We afford it human rights because it's not inhabiting another person's body any longer but we don't provide it care because that care doesn't win it anything. It's not compatible with life. None of us are entitled to medical care that doesn't benefit our health or well-being.

You can withold futile care without it constituting murder.

Okay, so long as you can be assured that care would be futile in the first place. That's getting somewhat tricky with advances in medical technology, making probability of survival hard to guess.


No, it's really not. Viability is CONSTANTLY overstated by anti-choicers, as if it's creeping back, becoming earlier and earlier. Advances in medical technology are not increasing the likelihood of survival for babies born at twenty-two weeks, which is minimal, but we STILL treat them because they MAY be viable.

At twenty-one weeks, viability is zero. No amount of advances in medical technology has altered this.

I see massive differences between killing something living off another human being who doesn't want it there and killing something or allowing something to die that was inhabiting it's own body.

I feel that this is also tenous somehow, as there are circumstances where the differences blur, becoming hard to define.


Whereas I do not.
what a terrible image
Rachel Bronwyn
 
Name: speaking moistly
Posts: 13343
Age: 32
Female

Canada (ca)
Print view this post

Re: Understanding the Violence in Islam

#283  Postby Rumraket » Oct 06, 2015 1:23 pm

quas wrote:
surreptitious57 wrote:Christianity was convenient to Hitler for two reasons. Germany was a Christian country and also Judaism was an alternative belief system to it [ although he thought of the Jews as a race rather than as a religion ] But regardless of any of his public pronouncements it is obvious that he was first and foremost a Fascist and that was most important of all. I once remember saying over at Atheist Forums that he was not a Christian and only used it for ulterior motive. And then I proceeded to get thoroughly shafted for saying such a stupid thing. In spite of that I still think that the evidence is circumstantial although I keep that to myself as I do not want to be shafted for a second time


Do you suspect that those forumers have an ulterior motive for outing Hitler as a Christian? I mean, lots of Christians and other religious folks have insisted that Hitler's holocaust was motivated by atheistic principles, so those atheists have the need to defend themselves by claiming that Hitler was actually a Christian.

I don't care whether Hitler was a christian. He sat in his office and stood behind podiums and spoke and gave orders Vileful, ignorant hatespeech, but nevertheless as far as we know Hitler never killed anyone himself.
It was nice, gentle, god-fearing christian germans that did all the actual killing, by following his orders, often believing they were doing god's work.
Half-Life 3 - I want to believe
User avatar
Rumraket
 
Posts: 13208
Age: 39

Print view this post

Re: Understanding the Violence in Islam

#284  Postby Spearthrower » Oct 06, 2015 1:45 pm

quas wrote:
Spearthrower wrote:
quas wrote:
I feel the logic is tenous there.



There's that word again.


What should I have said? Ethereal?



Well, it implies the following claim is coherent or singular - that it is the reasoned result of the facts. All too often, I see it being used to legitimize claims possessing none of these qualities. Essentially, it appears to be used where the notion of 'opinion' would be more suitable.
I'm not an atheist; I just don't believe in gods :- that which I don't belong to isn't a group!
Religion: Mass Stockholm Syndrome

Learn Stuff. Stuff good. https://www.coursera.org/
User avatar
Spearthrower
 
Posts: 27416
Age: 44
Male

Country: Thailand
Print view this post

Previous

Return to Islam

Who is online

Users viewing this topic: No registered users and 1 guest