[quote]kamui wrote:
Regarding the bolded part :
I absolutely agree, but how does this contradict what i said earlier ?
[/quote]
Need to explain why the human right to life is different than the right to life for a chimp, or house fly. So far the only valid argument I see is we are human so we have a bias towards that being more important. There are also the legal factors that are needed to live in a safe society which benefit us all, but for now lets ignore that as it is not relevant.
[quote]sufiandy wrote:
[quote]kamui wrote:
Regarding the bolded part :
I absolutely agree, but how does this contradict what i said earlier ?
[/quote]
Need to explain why the human right to life is different than the right to life for a chimp, or house fly.[/quote]
Actually, I do think that the life of a chimp or the life of a house fly have an intrinsic (and infinite) value.
And i do think that we are morally bound to respect this value.
But strictly speaking, it’s not a “right to life” because “right” is not only a moral concept, it’s a legal and social one.
Chimps and house flies aren’t (and can’t be) members of our social community nor parts of our legal system.
In other words, non human beings doesn’t have any right. But we, as human beings, have some duties toward every and all living beings, non human ones included.
You may think it’s “rhetoric”, but it’s only intellectual rigor and internal consistency.
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]Cortes wrote:
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
[quote]Cortes wrote:“I support burning heretics at the stake, but would never burn one, myself?”
[/quote]I KNEW IT!!! I’m gonna have to walk around in wet clothes with a fire extinguisher now in case any of your honey’s show up.
[/quote]
Hey man, I’m just saying, that’s a personal choice that only an individual Catholic can make. [/quote]
I get what you are trying to say, but, how is it not?
Lets extend the hypothetical to intercity gangs. You or I can go to every street corner in America, and attend every anti-gang rally all we want. It won’t do a damn bit of difference until each individual chooses to not join the gang.
Does it offer education and a veiw point different than the one they hold? Sure. Just like this thread. But until the government steps in and enforces anti-gang legislation, it is an individual choice.
I doesn’t matter if I think the person’s choice is horrible, it is still their choice.
Seems the numbers are dropping, and it is older woman making up the bulk of abortions…[/quote]
I guess I’m not understanding your point, and I really mean that, seriously no disrespect intended.
I was just making a silly (albeit clever 
joke, to be honest.
As far as my getting in a stab at the notion of “a woman’s choice” to kill the newly developing human inside her womb (whom she was responsible for creating in close to 99% of the cases, I will add); we live in a world of all sorts of “choices” that we have to make that involve the harm of another human being, sure. The difference and source of my sarcasm is that in this particular shell game, the “choice” exists solely as a distraction to conceal the fact that our “choices” end where those of another begin.
Sure, a man has the “choice” to drug his wife and child and burn down the house while they sleep inside it. The difference is that in this and any other case like it, even extending to unborn children, such as the Scott Peterson case, we hold the perpetrators legally responsible for the damages those choices wreak. We recognize the injustice instinctively and universally when one person’s “choice” results in the permanent denial of choice to another person, any choice at all, ever again.
The very shrewd, even ingenious craftsmen who created and refined the standard rhetoric of the “pro-choice” crowd, however, deceived enough people into buying the line that this particular case is different. In a stunning, ominous example of just how easy it is to convince otherwise good people to vehemently support the most heinous atrocities, they’ve managed to successfully legalize murder. And not just in a few cases, either. This “choice” that has managed to arrogate to itself protected status under federal law, is responsible now for the death of millions, that’s millions of people who were never given the choice to so much as draw their first breath.
Choice? (spit)
To hell with their bloody “choice.”
*edited for clarity
[quote]sufiandy wrote:
[quote]kamui wrote:
Regarding the bolded part :
I absolutely agree, but how does this contradict what i said earlier ?
[/quote]
Need to explain why the human right to life is different than the right to life for a chimp, or house fly. So far the only valid argument I see is we are human so we have a bias towards that being more important. There are also the legal factors that are needed to live in a safe society which benefit us all, but for now lets ignore that as it is not relevant.[/quote]
Andy, dude, you seriously crack me up. I swear you must be a troll for our side having fun with this whole thing.
So now we are seriously supposed to entertain the notion that unborn children are the equivalent of monkeys and insects? Or that you honestly need to have the difference explained to you?
You guys let this guy get away with lines like this? What, do you agree with him?
Sometimes I wonder if it would be fun to get a peak at what actually goes on inside your head, dude, or if I’d forever regret having heeded my better judgment in actually looking.
[quote]Cortes wrote:
I guess I’m not understanding your point, and I really mean that, seriously no disrespect intended. [/quote]
Well for not understanding you answered my question pretty well, lol, here:
[quote] we live in a world of all sorts of “choices” that we have to make that involve the harm of another human being, sure. The difference … is that … our “choices” end where those of another begin.
Sure, a man has the “choice” to drug his wife and child and burn down the house while they sleep inside it. The difference is that in this and any other case like it, … we hold the perpetrators legally responsible for the damages those choices wreak.[/quote]
Editting was mine
So, do you condemn those that do nothing, but hold the belief that an abortion is morally wrong?
[quote]therajraj wrote:
[quote]Cortes wrote:
Pretty sure there aren’t too many men writing letters to their skin grafts. Yet, we very often DO hear of stories just like the one above. Yet, you have already trivialized the loss that thousands, millions of women, even, have felt as little more than a misguided emotional reaction to societal pressure. [/quote]
Actually, based on what I’ve read, I doubt most see their abortion as a real loss, assuming it’s an unwanted pregnancy.
[quote]Cortes wrote:
If you really believe this, then why do you have such a limited stance on justifiable abortions? What’s the difference, right? [/quote]
Why are you conflating my stance on abortion with what we’re currently discussing?
[quote]Cortes wrote:
Exactly what is your point in doggedly pursuing this side track? [/quote]
Well there’s two reasons.
As someone who thinks a woman should be given the choice of having an abortion in the instances of rape, I was hoping you would soften your stance on abortion in this instance (I guess I’m a little delusional).
I really care if my beliefs are true and I assume you do too. Can you not see why it’s a bad idea to peddle a poor argument?
[quote]Cortes wrote:
All I can gather from everything you’ve typed is that abortion is no big deal and that the women who whine about them should suck it up, and that there aren’t that many women who give a flip about having their child ripped from their womb.[/quote]
Come on, you know I’m not telling suffering women to ‘suck it up’. What I’m saying is that there’s no causal link between mental health problems and abortion. That in all likelihood, when a woman suffers some sort of mental issue post-abort, the abortion procedure itself is generally not the culprit. At least not anymore often than surgery in general. Just to be perfectly clear, I believe people who are mentally damaged deserve treatment and am not minimizing their pain in anyway.
You love using these emotionally charged sentences. “there aren’t that many women who give a flip about having their child ripped from their womb.” Holy cow!
I doubt the liberal pro-choice 21 year old sees her abortion in the terms you describe. Again, you saw the word parasite used in this thread.
[quote]Cortes wrote:
We haven’t even touched on evolution and how women are genetically programmed to protect the carriers of their genetic information, that is their children, even unto death. Maybe that only kicks in after the child’s “life” begins. Which was…wait, when was that again? [/quote]
Whatever evolution says, it doesn’t speak to the morality of abortion.
On a side note, according to this mainstream Christian website evolution is the foundation for abortion:
“As the creation foundation is removed, we see the godly institutions also start to collapse. On the other hand, as the evolution foundation remains firm, the structures built on that foundationâ??lawlessness, homosexuality, abortion, etc.â??logically increase. We must understand this connection.”
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/lie/evils-of-evolution[/quote]
I’ll continue this discussion with you when you actually do something more than cut/paste a single googled abstract of a for-pay study and wave it around as if you’d somehow trumped every word I’ve said with your superior powers of “science.”
Right now, your points hold, at best, exactly the same weight as mine do. That is to say, you have not “proven” a damned thing here.
[quote]therajraj wrote:
[quote]TigerTime wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
I love the “I support abortion but I would never have one.” line of bullshit reasoning. [/quote]
“I support blow-jobs, but I would never give one.”
Still bullshit reasoning?[/quote]
Bad example. Blowjobs are not allowed under CC rules.[/quote]
Yeah, but this is probably one of those “it’s okay to ignore it” rules. Christianity is full of them.
[quote]Cortes wrote:
[quote]TigerTime wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
I love the “I support abortion but I would never have one.” line of bullshit reasoning. [/quote]
“I support blow-jobs, but I would never give one.”
Still bullshit reasoning?[/quote]
“I support spouse-beating, but would never hit my wife,” gets you a little closer to rhetorically equivalent.
[/quote]
Sure, but the problem there is with the action (violence), not the logic.
[quote]kamui wrote:
Regarding the bolded part :
I absolutely agree, but how does this contradict what i said earlier ?
[/quote]
Well I can take your argument to an absurd conclusion.
We shouldn’t kill animals because they are also unique beings.
[quote]Cortes wrote:
I’ll continue this discussion with you when you actually do something more than cut/paste a single googled abstract of a for-pay study and wave it around as if you’d somehow trumped every word I’ve said with your superior powers of “science.”
Right now, your points hold, at best, exactly the same weight as mine do. That is to say, you have not “proven” a damned thing here. [/quote]
Studies aside what about the authorities I stated? You reject them too?
C. Everett Koop a surgeon general under the Reagan administration and pro-life advocate refused to state that abortions performed by medical health professionals caused any serious health risks to women. He was actually under direct pressure to support the conclusion that it did.
I urge you to look it up.
Seriously dude, how can you possible ignore something like that?
[quote]Cortes wrote:
[quote]TigerTime wrote:
[quote]Cortes wrote:
One last question before bed:
A woman decides she does not want the child she is pregnant with, but, at 20 weeks, it is possible the child already possesses the pesky quality of pain sensitivity. Could we then still ethically justify killing her by anesthetizing her before cutting her up and collapsing her skull and sucking the brains and leftover pieces of her body out of her mother’s womb?
What’s the difference, right? No big deal.
Same question for the child at 30 weeks.
Same question for the child at 40 weeks.[/quote]
I wouldn’t have a problem with that.[/quote]
Nice.
So let’s see where this takes us.
Let’s say the mother has just had the child, but upon hearing her screams for the first time, she finally realizes the enormity of her responsibility and decides that she is not ready. Again, keeping all other factors equal, the only element that has changed is that the baby happens to now be on the opposite side of the vagina.
In our hypothetical world you are the law, so if you think it’s okay, then go ahead and consider it 100% on-the-table legal, for the sake of our discussion. Now, to continue:
Same question at 10 minutes after birth.
Same question at 24 hours.
Same question at a month.
6 months?
[/quote]
I know what you’re getting at and I’m going to save you time by plainly admitting; I don’t think any living thing, regardless of age, is above the possibility of a mercy killing. To me, it’s not a matter of who or what you are, but a matter of circumstance. If the circumstances are as such that continuing life is worse than death, I think you should be able to request assisted suicide. If you are incapable of consent, then, unless you have some sort of will indicating who you trust to make that call, it should be up to your closest relative.
In the case of a pregnancy, since it is the mother’s body, it it her choice. After birth, if no suitable relatives/friends offer to take care of the kid and the child is still not developed enough to be self aware, then it it’s still the mother’s choice.
Now, I completely understand your concern. There’s a lot of room for abuse, and I’ve also considered that. The thing is, for a mother to agree to killing her own child would take one of two things; Either an incredibly severe situation in which a mercy killing really is better than letting her child grow up (you can use your imagination on this one), or the woman is a sadist with an infanticide fetish. In the first case, it’s understandable because… well it’s tautologically the case. in the second scenario the mother is clearly not of sound enough mind to make that call and so the child (hopefully if it’s still alive) should be placed in some form of immediate foster care.
Why foster care and not immediate euthanasia of the child? Well, as stated before, this scenario involves no other suitable relative to act as a caretaker, which means the child is now technically in the care of the government. A mother has a personal interest in her own child, so for her to opt for a mercy killing would require one of the two scenarios above, but the government has no personal interest and so I wouldn’t trust them with that decision since they would, more than likely, choose murder as often as they can get away with it.
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]Cortes wrote:
I guess I’m not understanding your point, and I really mean that, seriously no disrespect intended. [/quote]
Well for not understanding you answered my question pretty well, lol, here:
[quote] we live in a world of all sorts of “choices” that we have to make that involve the harm of another human being, sure. The difference … is that … our “choices” end where those of another begin.
Sure, a man has the “choice” to drug his wife and child and burn down the house while they sleep inside it. The difference is that in this and any other case like it, … we hold the perpetrators legally responsible for the damages those choices wreak.[/quote]
Editting was mine
So, do you condemn those that do nothing, but hold the belief that an abortion is morally wrong?[/quote]
Personally? I do what I can to show abortion for what it really is: The very real act of murder that results when people convince themselves they can get away with it. A one-sided “choice,” born of the purest selfishness, to take the life of an innocent other. All this, simply because the only one who actually gets to exercise the sacred right to choose has decided that another is nothing more than a disposable inconvenience, a parasite, no less, anything at all, so long as it is not a HUMAN. Because then they would have to admit that the entire stinking affair has been nothing but a filthy lie from the very start.
Hopefully enough people will decide to stop fooling themselves and finally put an end to this monstrous evil.
[quote]TigerTime wrote:
[quote]Cortes wrote:
[quote]TigerTime wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
I love the “I support abortion but I would never have one.” line of bullshit reasoning. [/quote]
“I support blow-jobs, but I would never give one.”
Still bullshit reasoning?[/quote]
“I support spouse-beating, but would never hit my wife,” gets you a little closer to rhetorically equivalent.
[/quote]
Sure, but the problem there is with the action (violence), not the logic.[/quote]
Sorry?
[quote]Cortes wrote:
[quote]sufiandy wrote:
[quote]kamui wrote:
Regarding the bolded part :
I absolutely agree, but how does this contradict what i said earlier ?
[/quote]
Need to explain why the human right to life is different than the right to life for a chimp, or house fly. So far the only valid argument I see is we are human so we have a bias towards that being more important. There are also the legal factors that are needed to live in a safe society which benefit us all, but for now lets ignore that as it is not relevant.[/quote]
Andy, dude, you seriously crack me up. I swear you must be a troll for our side having fun with this whole thing.
So now we are seriously supposed to entertain the notion that unborn children are the equivalent of monkeys and insects? Or that you honestly need to have the difference explained to you?
You guys let this guy get away with lines like this? What, do you agree with him?
Sometimes I wonder if it would be fun to get a peak at what actually goes on inside your head, dude, or if I’d forever regret having heeded my better judgment in actually looking. [/quote]
Personally do you think there is a difference between a chimp and an insect in regards to killing either one?
[quote]Cortes wrote:
Sometimes I wonder if it would be fun to get a peak at what actually goes on inside your head, dude, or if I’d forever regret having heeded my better judgment in actually looking. [/quote]
According to you, probably something like this.
[quote]therajraj wrote:
[quote]kamui wrote:
Regarding the bolded part :
I absolutely agree, but how does this contradict what i said earlier ?
[/quote]
Well I can take your argument to an absurd conclusion.
We shouldn’t kill animals because they are also unique beings.
[/quote]
This is not an absurd conclusion.
Only an impracticable one.
Actually, we shouldn’t kill animal beings. Nor vegetal beings.
But
there is no choice here. Our actions will always lead, directly or indirectly, to the death of some animal and/or vegetal beings.
It’s a necessary evil. But it’s still an evil.
Animals compete with each others and kill each others, so, if we want to respect the lives of ALL beings equally, we have to do it globally, taking the whole ecosystem into account, and trying to preserve or even increase biodiversity.
Redefining words to win an argument will NEVER allow you to win the debate.
par·a·site - [par-uh-sahyt]
noun
Calling a newborn, who is the exact same species as the mother is a blatant attempt appealing to others emotions. If you would like to have a discussion, then please come forward with an open mind.
edit the accents, or at least tried, also forgot the link
[quote]kamui wrote:
[quote]sufiandy wrote:
[quote]kamui wrote:
Regarding the bolded part :
I absolutely agree, but how does this contradict what i said earlier ?
[/quote]
Need to explain why the human right to life is different than the right to life for a chimp, or house fly.[/quote]
Actually, I do think that the life of a chimp or the life of a house fly have an intrinsic (and infinite) value.
And i do think that we are morally bound to respect this value.
But strictly speaking, it’s not a “right to life” because “right” is not only a moral concept, it’s a legal and social one.
Chimps and house flies aren’t (and can’t be) members of our social community nor parts of our legal system.
In other words, non human beings doesn’t have any right. But we, as human beings, have some duties toward every and all living beings, non human ones included.
You may think it’s “rhetoric”, but it’s only intellectual rigor and internal consistency.
[/quote]
The legal and social ones are up to our own judgements, so I guess the moral one is the only one that needs explaining. Tell me more about the humans right to life and why it applies to us more than non-humans.
[quote]TigerTime wrote:
[quote]Cortes wrote:
[quote]TigerTime wrote:
[quote]Cortes wrote:
One last question before bed:
A woman decides she does not want the child she is pregnant with, but, at 20 weeks, it is possible the child already possesses the pesky quality of pain sensitivity. Could we then still ethically justify killing her by anesthetizing her before cutting her up and collapsing her skull and sucking the brains and leftover pieces of her body out of her mother’s womb?
What’s the difference, right? No big deal.
Same question for the child at 30 weeks.
Same question for the child at 40 weeks.[/quote]
I wouldn’t have a problem with that.[/quote]
Nice.
So let’s see where this takes us.
Let’s say the mother has just had the child, but upon hearing her screams for the first time, she finally realizes the enormity of her responsibility and decides that she is not ready. Again, keeping all other factors equal, the only element that has changed is that the baby happens to now be on the opposite side of the vagina.
In our hypothetical world you are the law, so if you think it’s okay, then go ahead and consider it 100% on-the-table legal, for the sake of our discussion. Now, to continue:
Same question at 10 minutes after birth.
Same question at 24 hours.
Same question at a month.
6 months?
[/quote]
I know what you’re getting at and I’m going to save you time by plainly admitting; I don’t think any living thing, regardless of age, is above the possibility of a mercy killing. To me, it’s not a matter of who or what you are, but a matter of circumstance. If the circumstances are as such that continuing life is worse than death, I think you should be able to request assisted suicide. If you are incapable of consent, then, unless you have some sort of will indicating who you trust to make that call, it should be up to your closest relative.
In the case of a pregnancy, since it is the mother’s body, it it her choice. After birth, if no suitable relatives/friends offer to take care of the kid and the child is still not developed enough to be self aware, then it it’s still the mother’s choice.
Now, I completely understand your concern. There’s a lot of room for abuse, and I’ve also considered that. The thing is, for a mother to agree to killing her own child would take one of two things; Either an incredibly severe situation in which a mercy killing really is better than letting her child grow up (you can use your imagination on this one), or the woman is a sadist with an infanticide fetish. In the first case, it’s understandable because… well it’s tautologically the case. in the second scenario the mother is clearly not of sound enough mind to make that call and so the child (hopefully if it’s still alive) should be placed in some form of immediate foster care.
Why foster care and not immediate euthanasia of the child? Well, as stated before, this scenario involves no other suitable relative to act as a caretaker, which means the child is now technically in the care of the government. A mother has a personal interest in her own child, so for her to opt for a mercy killing would require one of the two scenarios above, but the government has no personal interest and so I wouldn’t trust them with that decision since they would, more than likely, choose murder as often as they can get away with it. [/quote]
This is good stuff, dude, and I say that without the slightest hint of sarcasm.
You are so far ahead of any other pro-abortion poster on this forum that it boggles the mind to try and comprehend it. How is it that you get this so perfectly at such a young age while almost every other poster I have ever seen argue the pro-abortion side has not been willing to even slantwise face the cold truth you put forth right here?
Really interesting stuff. I really want to continue following this, but it is 4am again and I have just got to get to bed. More tomorrow.
[quote]kamui wrote:
[quote]therajraj wrote:
[quote]kamui wrote:
Regarding the bolded part :
I absolutely agree, but how does this contradict what i said earlier ?
[/quote]
Well I can take your argument to an absurd conclusion.
We shouldn’t kill animals because they are also unique beings.
[/quote]
This is not an absurd conclusion.
Only an impractical one.
Actually, we shouldn’t kill animal beings. Nor vegetal beings.
But
there is no choice here. Our actions will always lead, directly or indirectly, to the death of some animal and/or vegetal beings.
It’s a necessary evil. But it’s still an evil.
Animals compete with each others and kill each others, so, if we want to respect the lives of ALL beings equally, we have to do it globally, taking the whole ecosystem into account, and trying to preserve or even increase biodiversity.
The “good gardener” way, not the “PETA hysteria” way. [/quote]
Well at least you’re logically consistent, I’ll give you that.
Frankly, I’ll doubt you’ll find many supporters on this site agreeing that killing cows, pigs and chickens is immoral.