Abortions happen way beyond that stage. — frank

Thinking of Morning after pill.

With morality... — Serving Zion

...as found in the Bible. Do you eat shellfish?

as found in the Bible. — Banno

That's laughable, Banno. I am the judge of what is moral or not in my own words.

Do you eat shellfish? — Banno

What on earth does that have to do with the topic? .. and after all I have explained about the moral rights of blood cells, do you think I am not vegetarian?

What on earth does that have to do with the topic? — Serving Zion

Leviticus 11:

But anything in the seas or the rivers that does not have fins and scales, of the swarming creatures in the waters and of the living creatures that are in the waters, is detestable to you.

So one assumes you do not do anything so immoral as to eat prawns or oysters.

I am the judge of what is moral or not in my own words. — Serving Zion

Yeah. It doesn't work like that. We get to judge what you say, too.

You are presenting a patriarchal view of womanhood.

@Serving Zion, why not stop the pretence of doing anything like ethics and just admit that what you are doing here is not philosophy, but your own imaginings of what it is to serve Zion?

here's a bit from the book of Jude, — Serving Zion

You missed the point that these two blokes thought it acceptable to have their daughter and concubine raped to death.

Leviticus 11:

But anything in the seas or the rivers that does not have fins and scales, of the swarming creatures in the waters and of the living creatures that are in the waters, is detestable to you.

So one assumes you do not do anything so moral as to easy prawns or oysters. — Banno

It is interesting you have found it to be a matter of morality, where it has said only "a thing detestable" to you - שֶׁקֶץ Sheqets, from Leviticus 11:10, interlinear.

Could you review that and explain why you have said it is given as a commandment on the grounds of morality rather than just feelings of disgust?

I am the judge of what is moral or not in my own words.
— Serving Zion

Yeah. It doesn't work like that. We get to judge what you say, too. — Banno

Well, I have complained plenty that you seem to be hearing something different than what I am saying. That's not unusual, but it does make it impossible for me to accept that your judgements against me are valid.

You are presenting a patriarchal view of womanhood. — Banno

You know, I'm not really doing that. All I am saying, is that having sex is a pretty serious thing, but the present culture that you are lobbying for, and that is pretty well consuming the whole world, makes it seem like sex is as normal as eating food. There's a whole lot of problems that come as a result of that.

It doesn't say that though. Lot subjected his daughters to the townsfolk instead of the strangers. They are girls that had lived in the town all their lives, and the townsfolk all knew who they were. Do you not think that Lot was expecting they would come to their senses and do the decent thing?

It doesn't say that though. — Serving Zion

You have to believe that, don't you. Despite what is written right in front of you.

Actually, I have noticed that you'd quoted a story from Judges, and I had read the gist as being the story of Sodom and Gomorrah. In review of that story, from Judges 19-21, it is clear that since the whole of Israel came together to make war on the tribe of Benjamin and destroy them, for having not turned over the murderers, you have no right to say that the bible promotes that treatment of women. You are misrepresenting the bible.

Yeah, you had the wrong story. In the right story, the one I am talking about, Israel came together not to defend women's rights, but to defend father's and master's property rights.

Your holy book is full of such misogyny. It's anachronistic to expect it to set out virtues worthy of today.

why not stop the pretence of doing anything like ethics and just admit that what you are doing here is not philosophy, but your own imaginings of what it is to serve Zion? — Banno

Yeah, you had the wrong story. In the right story, the one I am talking about, Israel came together not to defend women's rights, but to defend father's and master's property rights. — Banno

Could you show where the text makes that distinction?

Your holy book is full of such misogyny. — Banno

I really am suspecting now that perhaps you genuinely don't understand what that word means...

It's anachronistic to expect it to set out virtues worthy of today. — Banno

Oh well, times change. Moral law doesn't.

Moral law doesn't. — Serving Zion

Again, you have to make that claim, because your morality is out of an old book.

That's why you find yourself adhering to the morally indefensible view that abortion is wrong.

It's about rights and enforcement of responsible behaviour. Does a person have a moral right to take life from a living entity that came as a result of irresponsible sex? Nope. Morality can't say it does. Book or no book.

Tedious.

All you have done here is assert your position, sans justification.

If you were interested, you would see quite the opposite - that is what I see.

I also see that you made many accusations, some repeatedly, without justification, and you have not answered any questions I have asked you that would force you to find your error.

SO go ahead, ask a direct question.

Another one? .. ok, in addition to those you have already ignored, what makes you repeatedly say that my moral views wrt abortion are from what the bible says? .. and can you show any statement in the bible that supports your idea (ie: where is abortion mentioned in the bible, etc).

what makes you repeatedly say that my moral views wrt abortion are from what the bible says? — Serving Zion

Your name, your predilection for scriptural quotations, and my experience of those who oppose abortion; together with your lack of a coherent ethical argument.

.. and can you show any statement in the bible that supports your idea — Serving Zion

No. Nor do I grant the bible any authority.

Your name, your predilection for scriptural quotations, and my experience of those who oppose abortion; — Banno

That is prejudice.

together with a lack of a coherent ethical argument. — Banno

Then the fact is clear that your failure to read me is the cause of your opinion, as you have admitted here. In light of what I have said, and what you have not understood, you do not speak truthfully when you accuse me of not making a "coherent ethical argument". The truthful statement would be that you do not see that I have made a coherent ethical argument. I strongly advise you to make an effort to understand what I have said.

.. and can you show any statement in the bible that supports your idea
— Serving Zion

No. Nor do I grant any biblical authority. — Banno

Then you really have no right to complain about my position as being "of the book" - and that figures, seeing as it is true that my position is only of judgement according to morality.

But anything in the seas or the rivers that does not have fins and scales, of the swarming creatures in the waters and of the living creatures that are in the waters, is detestable to you.

So one assumes you do not do anything so moral as to easy prawns or oysters.
— Banno — Banno

It is interesting you have found it to be a matter of morality, where it has said only "a thing detestable" to you - שֶׁקֶץ Sheqets, from Leviticus 11:10, interlinear.

Could you review that and explain why you have said it is given as a commandment on the grounds of morality rather than just feelings of disgust? — Serving Zion

@Banno, this is another important unanswered question too, along the same lines.

That is prejudice — Serving Zion

Then set me to rights; deny your religion.

The truthful statement would be that you do not see that I have made a coherent ethical argument. I — Serving Zion

Then present your argument, clearly and coherently. Or point to the post in which you do so.

...only of judgement according to morality. — Serving Zion

Yep. I'm saying your position is morally bankrupt. I explained why here.

What?

What? — Banno

Do you not understand that morality is different from desire?

Cysts are not persons. — Banno

This is where you and I have fundamental difference in philosophy, which empowers you to do that which is immoral in my view. You deny the rights of a blastocyst because you do not acknowledge the rights of personhood that the blastocyst has:

Being a person involves sentience, emotion, affection, physical health, an appetite, and rationality. A woman is capable of all of these. — Banno

and it is a distinction I have made clear from the start:

There are some people though, who do not recognise an unborn baby as a human being. I think that they have found an opportunity to disregard the perspective of the unborn because they do not see it's face, hear it's sounds, see it's reactions to environmental stimuli. But, that also can be said of parents who are in a bad mood, who also are completely unable to see those things in children. — Serving Zion

.. so, there is a clear pattern in this conversation, where right from the beginning when you approached me even until this moment, you have not engaged with me respectfully to hear what I am saying, but to argue against me in any way that pleases you. In order to do that, and as a consequence of your having chosen to do so, you have believed me to be someone quite different from who I am, and that has resulted in a large number of accusations against my character that are invalid. It is distracting whenever we are dealing with people of such a spirit that refuses to cooperate toward mutual understanding.

Yes. Your point?