' I am happy to live in a civilised country where I am not liable to be burned at the stake for stating the opinion that Christian belief is a silly superstition.'

these days you would be lucky not be sliced in the womb by secular bigots and heartless souls.

.

Dear Runner,

.

I often wonder, when I see your pithy little snippets on abortion, whether you eat eggs – fried, boiled, poached, scrambled, scribbled, as omelette, or, perhaps, simply raw.

But, naturally, I don’t expect any response from you on that. It’s none of my business what you eat. I just thought I’d let you know, that’s all.

That said, you must be having a whale of a time on this thread. It really was tailored for you. Abortion seems to be your principal preoccupation. I suppose there is a good reason for that – but that’s none of my business either.

It would have been fitting for Graham Preston to dedicate his article to you, personally. You really do deserve it. You’ve earned it, day after day, during all these years.

I am sure I am not the only one here on OLO who admires your dedication to the cause.

.

To Banjo Paterson.

You addressed me, Ttbn, and Runner when you said:

<<You obviously do not accept the OED definitions of what the words “abortion”, “embryo”, “fetus” and “baby” signify in the English language which, unfortunately makes any meaningful discussion on the subject under discussion impossible.>>
...
<<I do think we should try to find a common ground of understanding on the meaning of the words we employ.>>

I do not see any rejection of these words by myself or by Ttbn or a Runner. The position we take, that life starts in the womb, not at birth is the difference, not whether we accept or reject the words.

That said, I see no reason to hide behind language. The term fetus is a term on the development of a child while in their mother's womb. Talk to a pregnant woman and I assure you she will not talk about her fetus kicking, or anything of that nature. She will refer to the fetus as her baby kicking, her child, or if they've decided on a name already, the mother will call the child by their name. Even while in their womb. A second way to look at it is by a woman who has a miscarriage. She doesn't say she lost her fetus. She says she lost her baby, her child, or even the name she gave to the baby unborn that was in her womb.

When I see the discussion about abortion go towards defining fetus, the truth is that this is their position that a fetus is not worth protecting, and they would like to control the discussion by having language that mirrors their position. I do not accept that position nor do I accept the attempt to control and over rule a topic because of how words are defined.

If this make the conversation impossible, I assure you that it isn't impossible. You just have to try.

To David f.

If you want the conversation to continue then I'll wait for your reply on what I've said so far to you.

To David f. and OzSpen.

Regarding ad hominem in this discussion, here is my observation.

A few pages back the point of Christian belief was inserted into this discussion. Though it was not placed there origionally by either of you, once it was there the topic of the conversation shifted away from abortion to be about religous belief. In that aspect neither of you are committing a red harring or ad hominem by continuing into that part of the conversation; however the breach in topic in of itself is an ad hominem to change the topic to a different issue entirely.

I've seen this before on OLO. And after a few days I look back and think "wait weren't we talking about ________? How did it turn into a battle over my faith?" The truth is that it was a successful swap into the topic of religion. Which is a topic with a bullseye on it when on any topic a non beliver has that disagree with a believer's stance. The reasoning as
I've seen it goes like this: "This is because your Christian, not because of what you've argued or presented in your arguments." Which then (usually quite successfully) turn the topic away from whatever it was before to only be about defending and opposing a Christian's religious stance.

(Continued)

(Continued)

OzSpen, I don't know how to advise you in these occurrences, because in ignoring it, sometimes the other person will just focus on your faith anyways, regardless if you actively ignore their statements. And on the other hand even if you do ignore the statement, the opportunity to share your faith with the other person might be worth the tangent away from the topic. (Consider the point previously said about casting pearls before swine, against a counter point of always being ready to speak about your faith).

David f. A Christian's faith does affect many of their perspectives and views. However, even if the religion is silly to you, is that a reason to not discuss the topic that isn't their religion? Abortion is set aside, possibly for the remainder of this conversation, because you reject OzSpen's Christian Faith, and OzSpen rejects your position on his faith. Is that a reasonable position to a Christian when the topic isn't Christianity?

Dear NNS:

You wrote: David f. A Christian's faith does affect many of their perspectives and views. However, even if the religion is silly to you, is that a reason to not discuss the topic that isn't their religion? Abortion is set aside, possibly for the remainder of this conversation, because you reject OzSpen's Christian Faith, and OzSpen rejects your position on his faith. Is that a reasonable position to a Christian when the topic isn't Christianity?

I called OzSpen’s faith a silly superstition. I do not consider all versions of Christianity a silly superstition. It is a silly superstition to take the words of the Bible literally as OzSpen apparently does. Some Christians believe there is a deeper meaning, and the stories can be used as metaphors or symbolic truths which can point out facts about the human condition. OzSpen called Bishop Spong a heretic. Spong does not believe literally but thinks there is a basic truth in Christianity. I believe the world would be better off without Christianity but do not deny that that Christianity has made great contributions to our society. I also think the stories embodied in the pagan myths were a great contribution to our humanity and they point out facts about the human condition. However, the time for the religions of the classical world of the Greeks, Romans and Norse has passed, and their religions have disappeared. I believe the time for Christianity as a useful faith has also passed.

There is not one Christian viewpoint. Many Christians support our present laws which provide for a legal abortion by a medical practitioner. Many Christians would repeal those laws. In the Civil War the abolitionist societies were mainly Christian. The South which would retain slavery appealed to their Christian faith in pointing out that the Bible does not condemn slavery, and St. Paul advised slaves to be obedient to their masters. On many social questions there is not one Christian view, but a number of different views which Christians may defend as ‘the Christian view’.