• Before posting an article from a specific source, check this list here to see how much the Orange Room trust it. You can also vote/change your vote based on the source track record.

The Vatican, the Catholic And Christians Churches

Is the Vatican under Pope Francis

  • Too much interfering in politics

    Votes: 1 10.0%
  • Too much leftist

    Votes: 2 20.0%
  • Too much anti capitalist

    Votes: 1 10.0%
  • Is doing a great job

    Votes: 3 30.0%
  • Is doing a Middle job

    Votes: 3 30.0%
  • Is doing a bad job

    Votes: 1 10.0%
  • Is defending the poor and the environment

    Votes: 4 40.0%
  • It’s position on immigration negative

    Votes: 2 20.0%
  • It’s position on immigration positive

    Votes: 3 30.0%
  • The pope is a saint in his private life

    Votes: 2 20.0%
  • The pope is an inspirational figure

    Votes: 7 70.0%
  • Pope Francis while a saintly figure is wrong in his opposition to populist leaders like Trump or Lig

    Votes: 2 20.0%
  • It’s a scandal the Pope refuse to receive Populist Government in Italy

    Votes: 2 20.0%
  • Pope refusal of Abortions is great

    Votes: 4 40.0%
  • Pope acceptance not to condemn people and to give second chances even for abortions supporters is ??

    Votes: 4 40.0%

  • Total voters
    10

Mrsrx

Not an expert!
Staff member
Regarding your first point: Should we lift the ban on murder and crime for the criminals and murderers' sake ('addiction', 'necessity', 'life situation', etc)? If not, then why should we do it in the case of abortion?

Regarding your second point: How is it a mere opinion that the scope of liberty does not extend to abortion anymore than it does to killing helpless, innocent, and completely dependent human beings? Do you, for instance, support the killing of the newborn by their mothers who, for argument's sake, may happen to be single? If not, then how and why would you support it if the newborn are still unborn?

Are you purposely twisting what i am saying?
states should prevent necessity...and the opinion is that it is a murder and not legalisibg murder...i explained my opinion in my first reply and several times in this thread...
this is a futile debate...you do not like it vote against it and do not do it....
 

The Bidenator

Legendary Member
Orange Room Supporter
what's your take on Thoma's post? pretty simple argument up there: if every human being, irrespective of their development stage, is a person, and the unborn is a human being and is therefore a human person, then choosing to abort the unborn, for whatever reason, is tantamount to murder, the same way choosing to kill any other innocent yet born human being/person, for whatever reason, is

I insist you and @Thoma duke it out, and I'll watch from the sidelines with my popcorn and dictionary.
 

butters

Well-Known Member
Two things @Thoma:

1. There has never been a "clear scientific consensus" for when a fetus becomes alive, because "life" is in fact extremely complicated to define. To this day, no biologist(s) has ever put forth a singular all-encompassing definition that is universally accepted by the scientific community, and that's a fact. You claimed that a zygote is alive, which is true, but by that standard it's no more alive than the vast amount of cells lining the skin of your anus. Following that definition, if you scratch your anus, you also commit mass murder. The point is you're basing your entire argument on an extremely misguided and frankly dishonest presumption. At the end of the day, when "life" begins doesn't matter for the abortion debate, as much as when personhood begins, and there are more than many metrics and interpretations for that concept as well; one of which considers fetal neurological development and the point at which a fetus starts to feel pain, which hasn't been clearly defined yet (notice a pattern?). But again, if you believe that personhood begins at the zygote, then RIP all the persons sitting on your anus. Every day. Until the day you die. And your whole section on so-called "counter-claims and refutations" makes no sense once you realize that the issue is indeed not black & white as you falsely make it out to be to suit your own fictional narrative.

2. Quoting Anjezë Gonxhe Bojaxhiu, aka "Mother Teresa", one of the most prolific Christian criminals of modern times, as a serious authority on anything besides torturing the helpless (the irony is especially delicious here) and fraud, constitutes an immediate revokation of credibility in my eyes. I'd rather you just admit that you're a follower of creationism at this point.
 

Dark Angel

Legendary Member
Two things @Thoma:

1. There has never been a "clear scientific consensus" for when a fetus becomes alive, because "life" is in fact extremely complicated to define. To this day, no biologist(s) has ever put forth a singular all-encompassing definition that is universally accepted by the scientific community, and that's a fact. You claimed that a zygote is alive, which is true, but by that standard it's no more alive than the vast amount of cells lining the skin of your anus. Following that definition, if you scratch your anus, you also commit mass murder. The point is you're basing your entire argument on an extremely misguided and frankly dishonest presumption. At the end of the day, when "life" begins doesn't matter for the abortion debate, as much as when personhood begins, and there are more than many metrics and interpretations for that concept as well; one of which considers fetal neurological development and the point at which a fetus starts to feel pain, which hasn't been clearly defined yet (notice a pattern?). But again, if you believe that personhood begins at the zygote, then RIP all the persons sitting on your anus. Every day. Until the day you die. And your whole section on so-called "counter-claims and refutations" makes no sense once you realize that the issue is indeed not black & white as you falsely make it out to be to suit your own fictional narrative.

2. Quoting Anjezë Gonxhe Bojaxhiu, aka "Mother Teresa", one of the most prolific Christian criminals of modern times, as a serious authority on anything besides torturing the helpless (the irony is especially delicious here) and fraud, constitutes an immediate revokation of credibility in my eyes. I'd rather you just admit that you're a follower of creationism at this point.

stop making such wrong arguments.

even a single cell organism is alive, the egg itself is alive, so is the sperm. you are arguing there is no clear scientific definition of life and no clear scientific consensus when life begins? you are very wrong. there is a very clear consensus, even before the inception the cells are alive, and at the moment of insemination the resulting cell is alive.

what there is no consensus over is at which time these cells become a human being, and at which time killing these cells would amount to killing a human being, let alone a tiny defenseless one. feel free to argue the time at which you see fit that you can kill that fetus, to us it is crystal clear, a human life is being taken, with the agreement of the mother nevertheless.
 

Thoma

New Member
Two things @Thoma:

1. There has never been a "clear scientific consensus" for when a fetus becomes alive, because "life" is in fact extremely complicated to define. To this day, no biologist(s) has ever put forth a singular all-encompassing definition that is universally accepted by the scientific community, and that's a fact. You claimed that a zygote is alive, which is true, but by that standard it's no more alive than the vast amount of cells lining the skin of your anus. Following that definition, if you scratch your anus, you also commit mass murder. The point is you're basing your entire argument on an extremely misguided and frankly dishonest presumption. At the end of the day, when "life" begins doesn't matter for the abortion debate, as much as when personhood begins, and there are more than many metrics and interpretations for that concept as well; one of which considers fetal neurological development and the point at which a fetus starts to feel pain, which hasn't been clearly defined yet (notice a pattern?). But again, if you believe that personhood begins at the zygote, then RIP all the persons sitting on your anus. Every day. Until the day you die. And your whole section on so-called "counter-claims and refutations" makes no sense once you realize that the issue is indeed not black & white as you falsely make it out to be to suit your own fictional narrative.

re 1. The statement 'the unborn is a (distinct) human being' has a clear scientific consensus when it is being stated in textbooks/references/papers that are endorsed and taught at universities (esp. medical schools) around the world Life Begins at Fertilization with the Embryo's Conception ; and where no scientific paper exists that states otherwise (i.e. that states that a human life begins later on or at birth). Now, against this 'difficult reality' you can only start the process of banging your head against the wall and hoping for the best (from the frustration tone of your post i imagine you've long started it, so i can only suggest you keep going and keep hoping), and hopefully only after you reach some peace and reconcile with it, you can resume addressing the argument in my post (or the more compact version of it here.)

2. Quoting Anjezë Gonxhe Bojaxhiu, aka "Mother Teresa", one of the most prolific Christian criminals of modern times, as a serious authority on anything besides torturing the helpless (the irony is especially delicious here) and fraud, constitutes an immediate revokation of credibility in my eyes. I'd rather you just admit that you're a follower of creationism at this point.

re 2. Won't bother wasting time relaying and explaining the obvious. Understandably, people willingly living in caves all their lives or living conveniently in darkness won't only not have a nice word or two about sunlight esp. once they get to have a glimpse of it but they will denigrate it as life-threatening and eye-burner when in fact it is life-giver, sight-enabler and evil-deed exposer.
 
Last edited:

Thawra # Furoshima

Well-Known Member
"Instead of nailing crucifixes to the walls of the authorities, it would do more justice to Christian responsibility to show mercy and charity in everyday political life," said Bavaria's state chair Sigi Hagl of the Green party.
They are showing charity
Those who don’t like the crosses can leave Germany
Crusader land
 
Top