90% of Children with Down Syndrome are Aborted

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
741

[quote]Makavali wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]Makavali wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]Makavali wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:
A simple observation as proof (without DNA testing, even) that the organism (individual life) is human. In 25 years, undoubtedly, it would be a human adult. And, not an adult parrot.[/quote]

Not necessarily. A large number of pregnancies never come to term, most of the time without the mother ever knowing. So in 25 years, it is not guaranteed to become a human adult.[/quote]

Um, and that changes what? Are you suggesting there’s an organism switcheroo going on because a pregnancy might not come to term? What is the relevance? [/quote]

The relevance comes in because you all act like spontaneous miscarriage never happens and that every fertilized egg is guaranteed life, when this is not and never had been the case.[/quote]

Factually false. The embryo is an organism. life. Better yet, it is THE organism.

Edit: In case you’re still stuck. An embryo is an individual organism. An organism is life. A miscarriage has no bearing on these facts. The human embryo develops into a human adult. Those are two stages of the same individual organism. Of the same individual life. There is no switcheroo between two different ‘critters.’ A miscarriage doesn’t have any bearing on that fact, either. Just stop.[/quote]

The point here little one, is that there are multiple ways of looking at things. You can do all the mental gymnastics you want, but you’re not going to see people sign away a womans right to her own body away.

I may not support a woman getting an abortion personally, but I will fight for her right to dictate when and if she wants children.[/quote]

I haven’t used any mental gymnastics. Instead, I’ve watched you dodge very direct questions and points.

We’ll go one at a time. Dare you to answer them.

Embryo, living organism? Yes or no.

742

A group of organisms in an specific environment is a population.

A singled out organism–that is, one organism, is an individual. Yes or no.

743

a life cycle of an organism refers merely to the developmental stages of the same organism throughout. Yes or no.

744

It’s not really one at a time if you pose three in a row.

745

[quote]Makavali wrote:
It’s not really one at a time if you pose three in a row.[/quote]

They’ve been given separate posts, so you could deal with each, one at time, and directly. I can delete two of them if it would help you.

746

[quote]kneedragger79 wrote:
As a citizen of the United States of America, the following is necessary because as a person in this country I am entitled to ALL of them.

[quote]TigerTime wrote:
All “rights” are imaginary. No one is entitled to anything by necessity.[/quote]
[/quote]

And they’re ALL imaginary. None of these rights exist by necessity. Do you understand what I mean by this? They are man-made entitlements, not facts of reality. They only exist because we want them to exist and as the times have changed, so have our “rights”. Since “rights” are a cultural phenomenon and not ingrained into reality, it is a mistake to appeal to them as justification for your stance on abortion as they are subject to change.

747

[quote]TigerTime wrote:

[quote]kneedragger79 wrote:
As a citizen of the United States of America, the following is necessary because as a person in this country I am entitled to ALL of them.

[quote]TigerTime wrote:
All “rights” are imaginary. No one is entitled to anything by necessity.[/quote]
[/quote]

And they’re ALL imaginary. None of these rights exist by necessity. Do you understand what I mean by this? They are man-made entitlements, not facts of reality. They only exist because we want them to exist and as the times have changed, so have our “rights”. Since “rights” are a cultural phenomenon and not ingrained into reality, it is a mistake to appeal to them as justification for your stance on abortion as they are subject to change. [/quote]

http://www.nlnrac.org/earlymodern/locke

748

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]TigerTime wrote:

[quote]kneedragger79 wrote:
As a citizen of the United States of America, the following is necessary because as a person in this country I am entitled to ALL of them.

[quote]TigerTime wrote:
All “rights” are imaginary. No one is entitled to anything by necessity.[/quote]
[/quote]

And they’re ALL imaginary. None of these rights exist by necessity. Do you understand what I mean by this? They are man-made entitlements, not facts of reality. They only exist because we want them to exist and as the times have changed, so have our “rights”. Since “rights” are a cultural phenomenon and not ingrained into reality, it is a mistake to appeal to them as justification for your stance on abortion as they are subject to change. [/quote]

http://www.nlnrac.org/earlymodern/locke[/quote]

Your point being?

749

[quote]TigerTime wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]TigerTime wrote:

[quote]kneedragger79 wrote:
As a citizen of the United States of America, the following is necessary because as a person in this country I am entitled to ALL of them.

[quote]TigerTime wrote:
All “rights” are imaginary. No one is entitled to anything by necessity.[/quote]
[/quote]

And they’re ALL imaginary. None of these rights exist by necessity. Do you understand what I mean by this? They are man-made entitlements, not facts of reality. They only exist because we want them to exist and as the times have changed, so have our “rights”. Since “rights” are a cultural phenomenon and not ingrained into reality, it is a mistake to appeal to them as justification for your stance on abortion as they are subject to change. [/quote]

http://www.nlnrac.org/earlymodern/locke[/quote]

Your point being?[/quote]

They’re not imaginery. They’re inherent under the circumstances - i.e. I have an inherent right to protect my own life and property. That is not something imaginery. It is not something that can be bestowed or taken away. It simply is. It’s a ‘natural law.’

750

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]TigerTime wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]TigerTime wrote:

[quote]kneedragger79 wrote:
As a citizen of the United States of America, the following is necessary because as a person in this country I am entitled to ALL of them.

[quote]TigerTime wrote:
All “rights” are imaginary. No one is entitled to anything by necessity.[/quote]
[/quote]

And they’re ALL imaginary. None of these rights exist by necessity. Do you understand what I mean by this? They are man-made entitlements, not facts of reality. They only exist because we want them to exist and as the times have changed, so have our “rights”. Since “rights” are a cultural phenomenon and not ingrained into reality, it is a mistake to appeal to them as justification for your stance on abortion as they are subject to change. [/quote]

http://www.nlnrac.org/earlymodern/locke[/quote]

Your point being?[/quote]

They’re not imaginery. They’re inherent under the circumstances - i.e. I have an inherent right to protect my own life and property. That is not something imaginery. It is not something that can be bestowed or taken away. It simply is. It’s a ‘natural law.’[/quote]

… No. No, that’s stupid. “Rights” do not cross over into physics. They are not “natural laws” like thermodynamics. They are constructs of the human mind, no matter how you package them.

If your rights come from law, they are imaginary. Mere constructs of the population’s aggregate desires.
If your rights come from your own thoughts, then they are also imaginary, they just might not hold any water when dealing with other people.

You have the right to defend yourself both because you want this right and because others want this right for you. That doesn’t mean you have this right by necessity. If society’s values changed so that the right to protect yourself was no longer viewed as a right, do you still have that right? Says you, perhaps, but what if they put you in a straight jacket and lock you away? You may still feel you have this right, but as far as objective reality is concerned (let’s pretend it can be “concerned”) you don’t. Keep in mind, the ability to do something is not the same as a “right” and vice versa.

Right’s are not objective facts. Just because they are the way they are now doesn’t mean they must be that way by necessity. Do you get what I’m saying? You can’t use the believes of others as justification for your own beliefs. Not unless those beliefs are, in turn, actually rooted in reality.

And no, really wanting it to be rooted in reality doesn’t root it in reality.

751

[quote]TigerTime wrote:

… No. No, that’s stupid. “Rights” do not cross over into physics. They are not “natural laws” like thermodynamics. They are constructs of the human mind, no matter how you package them.

[/quote]

No, ‘natural law’ is not a human construct. ‘Positive law’ is a human construct.

No, that’s positive law not natural law.

See above.

Defending oneself trumps positive law. It’s part of the ‘state of nature’ that Hobbes described. Even animals are subject to natural law.

Yes it does.

[quote]
If society’s values changed so that the right to protect yourself was no longer viewed as a right, do you still have that right? Says you, perhaps, but what if they put you in a straight jacket and lock you away? You may still feel you have this right, but as far as objective reality is concerned (let’s pretend it can be “concerned”) you don’t. Keep in mind, the ability to do something is not the same as a “right” and vice versa.

Right’s are not objective facts. Just because they are the way they are now doesn’t mean they must be that way by necessity. Do you get what I’m saying? You can’t use the believes of others as justification for your own beliefs. Not unless those beliefs are, in turn, actually rooted in reality.

And no, really wanting it to be rooted in reality doesn’t root it in reality. [/quote]

You aren’t distinguishing between natural law and positive law. Also, the distinction between ‘rights’ and ‘freedoms’ in the state of nature is largely a matter of semantics. When the social contract is entered into certain natural rights - or freedoms - are given up in exchange. These are the rights that I contend exist in the state of nature.

752

Then Tigger needs to be the first courageous soul to declare that he hates this nation as founded which was on the “self evident” truth that all mean are CREATED equal and that their rights are endowed upon them by that creator. Come on. Don’t gimme some pathetic crap about how that is a product of it’s times. It IS the very foundation all that this country was founded to be.

753

[quote]SexMachine wrote:
You aren’t distinguishing between natural law and positive law. Also, the distinction between ‘rights’ and ‘freedoms’ in the state of nature is largely a matter of semantics. When the social contract is entered into certain natural rights - or freedoms - are given up in exchange. These are the rights that I contend exist in the state of nature.[/quote]

That’s because the distinction is bunk. Natural law is not an objective truth. The only thing stopping or allowing you to do something is your ability to do that thing. Every other factor only exists in the mind. This includes natural law. If natural law is objective, then why are there so many contradictory theories? If natural law is objective, then all this would be none-sense. It would simply be understood – like gravity. Sure, scientists argue about exactly what drives gravity, but they all agree on exactly what gravity does. Not true with Natural law and this is because it is a man-made idea. It has no set standard because it is simply a description of reality and since you can’t describe all of reality while being consistent, you end up with many inconsistent theories on natural law.

Basically, they all add up to the is-ought problem.

Besides, since the only objective constraint to one’s actions is ability, any natural right must derive itself from ability if it is to be objective. Therefore, having the ability to have an abortion gives one the right to have an abortion, thus justifying abortion with natural law.

754

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
Then Tigger needs to be the first courageous soul to declare that he hates this nation as founded which was on the “self evident” truth that all mean are CREATED equal and that their rights are endowed upon them by that creator. Come on. Don’t gimme some pathetic crap about how that is a product of it’s times. It IS the very foundation all that this country was founded to be.[/quote]

First, you all realize my name only has one “g”, right? Just thought I’d clarify that.

Second, if “rights” are God given, then why is there such disparity amongst the “rights” of different nations, even amongst the Christian nations? Either God himself has changed his mind on “rights” a lot (and didn’t bother correcting anyone) or these “rights” are merely what men have come up with and want them to be.

755

[quote]TigerTime wrote:

That’s because the distinction is bunk. Natural law is not an objective truth. The only thing stopping or allowing you to do something is your ability to do that thing.

[/quote]

Well that’s part of natural law. Might is right. You have the right to take things from someone less strong than you because you are fighting for your own survival in a place where life is ‘nasty, brutish and short.’

[quote]
Every other factor only exists in the mind. This includes natural law. If natural law is objective, then why are there so many contradictory theories? If natural law is objective, then all this would be none-sense. It would simply be understood – like gravity. Sure, scientists argue about exactly what drives gravity, but they all agree on exactly what gravity does. Not true with Natural law and this is because it is a man-made idea. It has no set standard because it is simply a description of reality and since you can’t describe all of reality while being consistent, you end up with many inconsistent theories on natural law.

Basically, they all add up to the is-ought problem.

Besides, since the only objective constraint to one’s actions is ability, any natural right must derive itself from ability if it is to be objective. Therefore, having the ability to have an abortion gives one the right to have an abortion, thus justifying abortion with natural law. [/quote]

Abortion? That would come under divine law which we have yet to mention. However this is what Hobbes said about the state of nature:

‘…during the time men live without a common power to keep them all in awe, they are in that condition which is called war; and such a war as is of every man against every man’ (Leviathan, ch. XIII). In this state any person has a natural right to the liberty to do anything he wills to preserve his own life, and life is “solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short”’

756

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]TigerTime wrote:

That’s because the distinction is bunk. Natural law is not an objective truth. The only thing stopping or allowing you to do something is your ability to do that thing.

[/quote]

Well that’s part of natural law. Might is right. You have the right to take things from someone less strong than you because you are fighting for your own survival in a place where life is ‘nasty, brutish and short.’

[quote]
Every other factor only exists in the mind. This includes natural law. If natural law is objective, then why are there so many contradictory theories? If natural law is objective, then all this would be none-sense. It would simply be understood – like gravity. Sure, scientists argue about exactly what drives gravity, but they all agree on exactly what gravity does. Not true with Natural law and this is because it is a man-made idea. It has no set standard because it is simply a description of reality and since you can’t describe all of reality while being consistent, you end up with many inconsistent theories on natural law.

Basically, they all add up to the is-ought problem.

Besides, since the only objective constraint to one’s actions is ability, any natural right must derive itself from ability if it is to be objective. Therefore, having the ability to have an abortion gives one the right to have an abortion, thus justifying abortion with natural law. [/quote]

Abortion? That would come under divine law which we have yet to mention. However this is what Hobbes said about the state of nature:

‘…during the time men live without a common power to keep them all in awe, they are in that condition which is called war; and such a war as is of every man against every man’ (Leviathan, ch. XIII). In this state any person has a natural right to the liberty to do anything he wills to preserve his own life, and life is “solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short”'[/quote]

… So you recognize that “natural law” is another way of saying “ability”. Well then, you’ve interjected into our debate knowing that you’re talking about something different than are we. And if you consciously recognized that we are talking about positive law, then exactly how is it a fair criticism to point towards natural law? Especially considering I would have no way of knowing “your” natural law unless you already explained it to me.

You’ve made “rights” objective, only because you’ve defined objective things as “rights” and not because “rights” are actually objective. You’ve merely blended the definition of “right” and “ability”. Not that there’s a problem in it, it just isn’t a valid counter argument to what I was saying to Kneedragger – especially considering the “might is right” mentality justifies the pro-choice position, the very thing he is arguing against.

And if abortion is covered is divine law and NOT natural law, then natural law is entirely irrelevant to this debate.

757

[quote]TigerTime wrote:

… So you recognize that “natural law” is another way of saying “ability”.

[/quote]

Not really. It’s not the ability that affords the right but the environment and circumstance.

My apologies. I saw your statement claiming all rights are man-made constructs and only exist in mans’ mind. I don’t agree with that. And I provided a link on the Hobbesian/Lockean ‘natural law’ to explain what I meant.

I guess that depends on what you mean by ‘rights.’

Not so. I used the term rights in the same sense as Hobbes, Locke and Rousseau. If there is a blending it would be of the concept of ‘rights’ and ‘freedom.’

We don’t live in a state of nature. It’s an analysis of the nature of mankind and society
not a blueprint. Hobbes and Locke were both Christians - especially Hobbes.

My apologies. I was commenting on your statement that all rights are man-made constructs. However what you say(above about divine and natural law being irrelevant) may or may not be correct. Hugo Grotius’s view was that the two are completely unrelated:

About natural law itself, he wrote that “even the will of an omnipotent being cannot change or abrogate” natural law, which “would maintain its objective validity even if we should assume the impossible, that there is no God or that he does not care for human affairs.”

758

[quote]TigerTime wrote:

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
Then Tigger needs to be the first courageous soul to declare that he hates this nation as founded which was on the “self evident” truth that all mean are CREATED equal and that their rights are endowed upon them by that creator. Come on. Don’t gimme some pathetic crap about how that is a product of it’s times. It IS the very foundation all that this country was founded to be.[/quote]

First, you all realize my name only has one “g”, right? Just thought I’d clarify that.

Second, if “rights” are God given, then why is there such disparity amongst the “rights” of different nations, even amongst the Christian nations? Either God himself has changed his mind on “rights” a lot (and didn’t bother correcting anyone) or these “rights” are merely what men have come up with and want them to be. [/quote]Or different nations are more or less faithful in their aligning themselves with the rights that our founders declared to be self evident. You’re smarter than this dude. That was a pitiful freshman fallacy. It’s like saying “if murder is illegal then why do people keep killing each other huh? So there.”

No answer as usual. This nation was declared outta the gate to be built on God given rights and “divine providence”. That’s why we went from 13 colonies who defeated the greatest military power on earth at the time to… well… the greatest military power in the whole of human history ourselves. The most prosperous, successful, progressive, feared and envied people ever to live on this planet. That IS (or was) the United States of America. We abandoned that in the 1960’s and instead decided we would become an atheistic national whorehouse and now were dying… fast. People like you will not rest until the whole country looks like Detroit and we’re well on our way.

Why won’t any of you God hating pagans simply say you do not like this nation as founded? I can post the next 10 pages of documentation that we were launched on crystal clear Christian principles and that the populous in the 18th century was overwhelmingly descended ideologically from the protestant reformation. I would respect you more. Just say you hate that. It’s obvious you do anyway.

759

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]TigerTime wrote:

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
Then Tigger needs to be the first courageous soul to declare that he hates this nation as founded which was on the “self evident” truth that all mean are CREATED equal and that their rights are endowed upon them by that creator. Come on. Don’t gimme some pathetic crap about how that is a product of it’s times. It IS the very foundation all that this country was founded to be.[/quote]

First, you all realize my name only has one “g”, right? Just thought I’d clarify that.

Second, if “rights” are God given, then why is there such disparity amongst the “rights” of different nations, even amongst the Christian nations? Either God himself has changed his mind on “rights” a lot (and didn’t bother correcting anyone) or these “rights” are merely what men have come up with and want them to be. [/quote]Or different nations are more or less faithful in their aligning themselves with the rights that our founders declared to be self evident. You’re smarter than this dude. That was a pitiful freshman fallacy. It’s like saying “if murder is illegal then why do people keep killing each other huh? So there.”

No answer as usual. This nation was declared outta the gate to be built on God given rights and “divine providence”. That’s why we went from 13 colonies who defeated the greatest military power on earth at the time to… well… the greatest military power in the whole of human history ourselves. The most prosperous, successful, progressive, feared and envied people ever to live on this planet. That IS (or was) the United States of America. We abandoned that in the 1960’s and instead decided we would become an atheistic national whorehouse and now were dying… fast. People like you will not rest until the whole country looks like Detroit and we’re well on our way.

Why won’t any of you God hating pagans simply say you do not like this nation as founded? I can post the next 10 pages of documentation that we were launched on crystal clear Christian principles and that the populous in the 18th century was overwhelmingly descended ideologically from the protestant reformation. I would respect you more. Just say you hate that. It’s obvious you do anyway.
[/quote]

I haven’t read anything for the last 10 pages, but I can say that Christians made arguably the worst war ever, the Crusades. So yeah, Christians do suck. Also, Muslims suck. Only Chine and Japan has not done a war based on religion, as far as I know. I gues believing in dragons and stuff is anti-war or something. Random post, but religions generally suck.

760

The crusades were conducted by the Roman Catholic church, not Christians. I join you in condemning both.