The Abortion Thread

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
581

[quote]JoabSonOfZeruiah wrote:

[quote]therajraj wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

And because a fetus is an innocent human being, thus we have come to the conclusion that a fetus has a right to life.
[/quote]

The law doesn’t see a fetus as a human being as I pointed out earlier. Rights must be granted, so no a fetus doesn’t have a right to life.

Read the law I posted earlier.

[/quote]
Rights granted I assume from government? But what is government? If Hitler won World War II and took over the world and said colored,etc… are not human beings would he be right?[/quote]

No.

What rights we’re granted and what’s morally correct are two different things.

I’m just saying a “right to life” doesn’t exist w/ respect to the topic.

582

[quote]JoabSonOfZeruiah wrote:

Edited:
If he is not right, then rights are not granted from government. What about science that does say fetuses are human in contrast to the law; which one is right?[/quote]

Before you start drilling me with questions, do you know what my position on abortion actually is?

583

[quote]therajraj wrote:

[quote]JoabSonOfZeruiah wrote:

Edited:
If he is not right, then rights are not granted from government. What about science that does say fetuses are human in contrast to the law; which one is right?[/quote]

Before you start drilling me with questions, do you know what my position on abortion actually is?[/quote]
No

584

[quote]JoabSonOfZeruiah wrote:

[quote]therajraj wrote:

[quote]JoabSonOfZeruiah wrote:

Edited:
If he is not right, then rights are not granted from government. What about science that does say fetuses are human in contrast to the law; which one is right?[/quote]

Before you start drilling me with questions, do you know what my position on abortion actually is?[/quote]
No[/quote]

I think abortion should only be legal in very specific circumstances - instances of rape/incest, mother’s life is in danger or any other legitimate reason as dictated by a doctor.

I’m guessing your probably thought I was pro-choice since I am an atheist… that’s why I asked.

585

[quote]therajraj wrote:

[quote]JoabSonOfZeruiah wrote:

[quote]therajraj wrote:

[quote]JoabSonOfZeruiah wrote:

Edited:
If he is not right, then rights are not granted from government. What about science that does say fetuses are human in contrast to the law; which one is right?[/quote]

Before you start drilling me with questions, do you know what my position on abortion actually is?[/quote]
No[/quote]

I think abortion should only be legal in very specific circumstances - instances of rape/incest, mother’s life is in danger or any other legitimate reason as dictated by a doctor.

I’m guessing your probably thought I was pro-choice since I am an atheist… that’s why I asked.[/quote]
Most of the prolife members on this board are willing to concede to abortion on those terms even if most of us still think its wrong on those terms.

I did think you were pro-choice in terms of general abortion when your brought up that the law doesn’t view the fetus as human.

586

[quote]JoabSonOfZeruiah wrote:

[quote]therajraj wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

And because a fetus is an innocent human being, thus we have come to the conclusion that a fetus has a right to life.
[/quote]

The law doesn’t see a fetus as a human being as I pointed out earlier. Rights must be granted, so no a fetus doesn’t have a right to life.

Read the law I posted earlier.

[/quote]
Rights granted I assume from government? But what is government? If Hitler won World War II and took over the world and said colored,etc… are not human beings would he be right?
Edited:
If he is not right, then rights are not granted from government. What about science that does say fetuses are human in contrast to the law; which one is right?[/quote]

Why would it matter if Hilter was right or wrong on a topic? The end result would be the same.

587

[quote]sufiandy wrote:

[quote]JoabSonOfZeruiah wrote:

[quote]therajraj wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

And because a fetus is an innocent human being, thus we have come to the conclusion that a fetus has a right to life.
[/quote]

The law doesn’t see a fetus as a human being as I pointed out earlier. Rights must be granted, so no a fetus doesn’t have a right to life.

Read the law I posted earlier.

[/quote]
Rights granted I assume from government? But what is government? If Hitler won World War II and took over the world and said colored,etc… are not human beings would he be right?
Edited:
If he is not right, then rights are not granted from government. What about science that does say fetuses are human in contrast to the law; which one is right?[/quote]

Why would it matter if Hilter was right or wrong on a topic? The end result would be the same.[/quote]
Yes in such a hypothetical me, raj, colored etc… are doomed but the real point of such a thought experiments is to bring ones premises to there logical conclusion to see if they make sense or if there is no problem; if they don’t hopefully it should cause one to reevaluate said premise.

For example Schrodinger’s cat thought experiment was devised to point out the problem with the Copenhagen interpretation of QM, not that if zombie cats exist we should be prepared with shotguns.

588

[quote]pat wrote:
You’re trying to argue that taking a human life is a fine option until a compelling argument can made to not do so? [/quote]

I don’t know that it is stupid.

In the whole of human history, I feel like it has only been recently (couple hundred years maybe) where taking the life of another is some major issue.

I mean, in the “middle ages” weren’t peeps ax’ing each other in the face all the time?

Was the scene in 300 where they contimplate tossing the baby off the cliff accurate of the times?

Not saying our current moral backbone is wrong, but isn’t it a some-what recent development?

Humans don’t really have a great track record of not killing each other throughout history.

589

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]TigerTime wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]TigerTime wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]therajraj wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]therajraj wrote:
it’s just rhetoric no different than people who push the “right to choose” crap.

Every “being” human or non-human is unique.

[/quote]

It’s just rhetoric? Well one is right and one is wrong. Not really rhetoric.[/quote]

Demonstrate that a “right to life” is an objective fact.[/quote]

Demonstrate it’s not…[/quote]

I’m afraid that’s not how it works. Lack of counter evidence is not evidense for your position. In this case, lack of a counter argument is not an argument for your position, especially if you’ve given no argument to counter.

Even if he can’t initially demonstrate that a right to life is not objective, it would only, at best, prove that “a right to life”'s objectivity is a possibility, not that it is so. That’s your job.[/quote]

If people outside the womb, have a right to live then so does the in utero human, because both are living human organisms.

You don’t understand burden of proof, by asking this question you are tacitly implying that you have a right to kill. What give you the right to kill?[/quote]

And you don’t understand how commas work.

What if I question a birthed human’s innate right to life as well? From where do you draw a fetus’ right to life then?

Killing is not the only way a person can die and not having the right is not the same as not being “allowed” or being illegal, so no, this isn’t a shift in burden of proof. All points are neutral until proven otherwise. If you refuse to logically prove that human’s have a right to life, then the best you can do is keep the point neutral.

For the record, I don’t think the right to kill is a universal truth either. Now, if I don’t have the right to kill and you don’t have the right to life, then me killing you isn’t a matter of rights at all. The point remains neutral. [/quote]

If your talking about right to life, you’re talking about a human taking another human’s life. That’s the only case in which a ‘right’ applies. Are you seriously trying to argue that not killing another person needs to be justified to you? You’re trying to argue that taking a human life is a fine option until a compelling argument can made to not do so? The idea is almost to stupid to give even slight credence to. Why don’t you exercise you’re right to terminate a human life? Then you’ll have lots of time to think about why it’s wrong to take a life.
What it does tell me, that you admit the fetal human is a human life. You just think it’s ok to take it. That’s fine, at least you admit what it is.
If this is the tortured reasoning that you have to resort to, to justify abortion, then their is no justification for it. [/quote]

I don’t think you understand what I’m saying. It’s not as though the default option is either “kill” or “not kill”, the default option is neutral. In some cases, killing is justified; In others, it isn’t. The idea is to treat each individual situation as it is, an individual situation. Every situation has it’s own factors to consider.

590

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

And because a fetus is an innocent human being, thus we have come to the conclusion that a fetus has a right to life.
[/quote]

Original sin???

591

[quote]therajraj wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

And because a fetus is an innocent human being, thus we have come to the conclusion that a fetus has a right to life.
[/quote]

The law doesn’t see a fetus as a human being as I pointed out earlier. Rights must be granted, so no a fetus doesn’t have a right to life.

Read the law I posted earlier.

[/quote]

We’re not discussing what the law says. I thought we established this. If “the law says” is a valid argument then the Nuremberg Trials got it wrong and should not have sentenced all those Nazi officers to be hung and executed for murdering all those people.

592

In this country rights “have been endowed by our creator”

593

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]therajraj wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

And because a fetus is an innocent human being, thus we have come to the conclusion that a fetus has a right to life.
[/quote]

The law doesn’t see a fetus as a human being as I pointed out earlier. Rights must be granted, so no a fetus doesn’t have a right to life.

Read the law I posted earlier.

[/quote]

We’re not discussing what the law says. I thought we established this. If “the law says” is a valid argument then the Nuremberg Trials got it wrong and should not have sentenced all those Nazi officers to be hung and executed for murdering all those people.[/quote]

?

I already explained this.

Society grants rights, but that is completely separate from what’s morally correct.

594

[quote]sufiandy wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]sufiandy wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]therajraj wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]therajraj wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]therajraj wrote:
it’s just rhetoric no different than people who push the “right to choose” crap.

Every “being” human or non-human is unique.

[/quote]

It’s just rhetoric? Well one is right and one is wrong. Not really rhetoric.[/quote]

Demonstrate that a “right to life” is an objective fact.[/quote]

Do I have an obligation to not kill innocent human beings? Or, am I free of such obligations?[/quote]

No you aren’t obligated to kill innocent human beings.

Is a pregnant woman obligated to protect her 10 week old fetus in the US? Or is she free of such obligations?[/quote]

That’s not the question I asked. I’ll ask again:

Do I have an obligation to not kill innocent human beings? Or, am I free of such obligations?[/quote]

An obligation is an action taken, not killing implies your action at a at a given time is something else instead of killing, reading the bible for example. You could also phrase your question as this.

Do I have an obligation to read the bible?

Yes, you are free of such obligations.[/quote]

There are plenty of moral obligations that are formed in the manner of “thou shalt not.” I’m not sure where this one sided understanding of obligation comes from. Thou shalt not commit adultery is an obligation as much as thou shalt honor thy father and mother. [/quote]

Okay fine.

Do I have an obligation to not kill innocent human beings?

In most cases yes but like everything there are exceptions.[/quote]

What are those exceptions?

595

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:<<< What are those exceptions?[/quote]When they’ve committed a capital crime, when they’re trying to kill my family not out of persecution for the gospel’s sake and when I’m fighting a righteous war.

596

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:<<< What are those exceptions?[/quote]When they’ve committed a capital crime, when they’re trying to kill my family not out of persecution for the gospel’s sake and when I’m fighting a righteous war.
[/quote]

And there’s also euthanasia and abortion but we’ll go with your answer since BC might like it better.

597

[quote]sufiandy wrote:

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:<<< What are those exceptions?[/quote]When they’ve committed a capital crime, when they’re trying to kill my family not out of persecution for the gospel’s sake and when I’m fighting a righteous war.
[/quote]

And there’s also euthanasia and abortion but we’ll go with your answer since BC might like it better.[/quote]

Better question: How do you determine an “exception?”

598

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]sufiandy wrote:

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:<<< What are those exceptions?[/quote]When they’ve committed a capital crime, when they’re trying to kill my family not out of persecution for the gospel’s sake and when I’m fighting a righteous war.
[/quote]

And there’s also euthanasia and abortion but we’ll go with your answer since BC might like it better.[/quote]

Better question: How do you determine an “exception?”[/quote]

I’ll never say killing someone is good, but the exception is when it becomes a necessary evil. Necessary evil being defined as if one doesn’t commit the evil, then a greater evil(s) will occur.

599

[quote]Fletch1986 wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]sufiandy wrote:

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:<<< What are those exceptions?[/quote]When they’ve committed a capital crime, when they’re trying to kill my family not out of persecution for the gospel’s sake and when I’m fighting a righteous war.
[/quote]

And there’s also euthanasia and abortion but we’ll go with your answer since BC might like it better.[/quote]

Better question: How do you determine an “exception?”[/quote]

I’ll never say killing someone is good, but the exception is when it becomes a necessary evil. Necessary evil being defined as if one doesn’t commit the evil, then a greater evil(s) will occur. [/quote]

Does capital punishment fit that description?

600

[quote]sufiandy wrote:

[quote]Fletch1986 wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]sufiandy wrote:

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:<<< What are those exceptions?[/quote]When they’ve committed a capital crime, when they’re trying to kill my family not out of persecution for the gospel’s sake and when I’m fighting a righteous war.
[/quote]

And there’s also euthanasia and abortion but we’ll go with your answer since BC might like it better.[/quote]

Better question: How do you determine an “exception?”[/quote]

I’ll never say killing someone is good, but the exception is when it becomes a necessary evil. Necessary evil being defined as if one doesn’t commit the evil, then a greater evil(s) will occur. [/quote]

Does capital punishment fit that description?[/quote]

I’m torn on that one. Simply put, I don’t know.