4 ms·
needless to go on theology grounds to argue against unborn killing. you don't need to accept any particular theology to come to the conclusion. btw it is sorte
by bandie91 4y ago
needless to go on theology grounds to argue against unborn killing. you don't need to accept any particular theology to come to the conclusion.
btw it is sorted in a list not because of any argumentation structure.
i don't think (and don't see what indicated it to you) that there are only these 2 options in terms of worship targets. but phrasing the other option the "only" "right" one, paints me an intolerant blind-faithed, which i reject.
- eru 4y agoJust leave 'Moloch' out of the picture. It makes your argument weaker for the HN audience. Btw, you might find https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam_and_abortion https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam_and_abortion and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judaism_and_abortion https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judaism_and_abortion interesting.
- bandie91 4y agoyea, i thought that referring to a supernatural being by a name which is also found in books associated with religion may indeed turn the reader dismissive. however i hoped a slight chance to draw maybe a few reader's attention to the point that fetus-killing arguments often are as religion-based as the oppotent is represented to be. the difference which hides this similarity is that religions which are not public, visible, inquireable, are not called "religion".