Wrong raj, prove to me that from the earliest moments of conception the unborn are NOT complete, whole, and distinct human beings.
[quote]therajraj wrote:And apparently the findings of studies covering 150,000 women as well as medical and psychological organizations mean little to you either.
There is no amount of evidence that will convince you that abortion procedures rarely scar women.[/quote]
[quote]TigerTime wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]therajraj wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
I feel like enough of our reactions to the world around us as humans is so dependant upon the times in which said human lives, that we might just be what you describe, conditioned to respond the way our particular era tells us to.
[/quote]
This is exactly it. There was a time where most people saw little wrong with owning another human being. They didn’t think twice about it.
You can draw a parallel to how abortion is seen by many today.[/quote]
Correct observation. Now the question is, even when people thought it was ok to own another human was it still wrong, or was it right because people thought it was ok?
[/quote]
Neither. Objective morality does not exist and subjective morality is, ultimately, arbitrary. These people did what they wanted to do and justified it with “morality”. People do the same thing today, but for different reasons. [/quote]
This former atheist perfectly illustrates the lacking in your moral relativism. And you know damn well that slavery is as was always wrong. Trying to preserve it as right just to maintain an atheist methodology is very stretched, tortured reasoning.
“I could hypothesize how a Forms-material world link would work in the case of mathematics (a little long and off topic for this post, but pretty much the canonical idea of recognizing Two-ness as the quality thatâ??s shared by two chairs and two houses, etc. Once you get the natural numbers, the rest of mathematics is in your grasp). But I didnâ??t have an analogue for how humans got bootstrap up to get even a partial understanding of objective moral law.”
This lady understands metaphysics waaaaay better than you do…
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]TigerTime wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]therajraj wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
I feel like enough of our reactions to the world around us as humans is so dependant upon the times in which said human lives, that we might just be what you describe, conditioned to respond the way our particular era tells us to.
[/quote]
This is exactly it. There was a time where most people saw little wrong with owning another human being. They didn’t think twice about it.
You can draw a parallel to how abortion is seen by many today.[/quote]
Correct observation. Now the question is, even when people thought it was ok to own another human was it still wrong, or was it right because people thought it was ok?
[/quote]
Neither. Objective morality does not exist and subjective morality is, ultimately, arbitrary. These people did what they wanted to do and justified it with “morality”. People do the same thing today, but for different reasons. [/quote]
So your saying that it was ok to have slaves? You don’t see the failure of this argument? What about the slaves, did they not count then?[/quote]
Meaning child rape, too, is a-okay. Just get enough people to agree with or fear you and you are gtg.
[quote]Cortes wrote:
[quote]therajraj wrote:
And herein lies the problem. You are unable to grasp the point that people have a different moral code then you.
[/quote]
Oh I grasp this point perfectly. I’m trying to figure out what yours is. [/quote]
If you can’t beat argument, I guess the next logical step is to attack the man.
[quote]kneedragger79 wrote:
Wrong raj, prove to me that from the earliest moments of conception the unborn are NOT complete, whole, and distinct human beings.
[/quote]
…
[quote]countingbeans wrote:[quote]Tiribulus wrote:[quote]countingbeans wrote:[quote]Tiribulus wrote:You may fire at will. [/quote]I give you credit for being honest. Thankfully I didn’t, but had I been made to make that choice, I don’t know that I could have let my wife go. [/quote]I believe you may need to reread my post.[/quote]Just did, and I’m not sure what I am not understanding.[/quote]I said I wouldn’t let my wife go either. Unless I’M misunderstanding YOU?
[quote]Cortes wrote:
[quote]therajraj wrote:
And herein lies the problem. You are unable to grasp the point that people have a different moral code then you.
[/quote]
Oh I grasp this point perfectly. I’m trying to figure out what yours is. [/quote]
You’re pushing a bad argument.
[quote]therajraj wrote:
[quote]Cortes wrote:
[quote]therajraj wrote:
And herein lies the problem. You are unable to grasp the point that people have a different moral code then you.
[/quote]
Oh I grasp this point perfectly. I’m trying to figure out what yours is. [/quote]
If you can’t beat argument, I guess the next logical step is to attack the man.[/quote]
High five!
Hey, I’ve got one, too. The next logical step is to use logical fallacies like the straw man? Like you just did here? How many times have I stated that the actual truth or falsity of your statement was completely beside the point? I can quote myself, but I just did, above. I even said “note the italics.”
Your ignoring me over and over and over to win your own special argument that you are now having with yourself does not exactly make you out to be the great debater, dude, no matter how bad you want to be.
Try answering the actual questions I’ve been asking you for the past page and a half to find out where I’m at. I’ll be here when you catch up.
[quote]therajraj wrote:
[quote]Cortes wrote:
[quote]therajraj wrote:
And herein lies the problem. You are unable to grasp the point that people have a different moral code then you.
[/quote]
Oh I grasp this point perfectly. I’m trying to figure out what yours is. [/quote]
You’re pushing a bad argument. [/quote]
And what is that argument, raj? Please, tell me.
[quote]Cortes wrote:
Hey raj, if you shoot a dog in the head, and the dog dies, would you expect the dog to stay dead?[/quote]
You ignored this, btw.
Wonder why…
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:[quote]Tiribulus wrote:[quote]countingbeans wrote:[quote]Tiribulus wrote:You may fire at will. [/quote]I give you credit for being honest. Thankfully I didn’t, but had I been made to make that choice, I don’t know that I could have let my wife go. [/quote]I believe you may need to reread my post.[/quote]Just did, and I’m not sure what I am not understanding.[/quote]I said I wouldn’t let my wife go either. Unless I’M misunderstanding YOU?
[/quote]
haha, maybe.
I was basically saying I agreed with you and would most likely choose my wife. She would punch me in the mouth for doing it, and I would most likely hate myself either way, but I’m pretty sure I would pick my wife.
Damn it thinking about this even makes me feel like shit.
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]TigerTime wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]therajraj wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
I feel like enough of our reactions to the world around us as humans is so dependant upon the times in which said human lives, that we might just be what you describe, conditioned to respond the way our particular era tells us to.
[/quote]
This is exactly it. There was a time where most people saw little wrong with owning another human being. They didn’t think twice about it.
You can draw a parallel to how abortion is seen by many today.[/quote]
Correct observation. Now the question is, even when people thought it was ok to own another human was it still wrong, or was it right because people thought it was ok?
[/quote]
Neither. Objective morality does not exist and subjective morality is, ultimately, arbitrary. These people did what they wanted to do and justified it with “morality”. People do the same thing today, but for different reasons. [/quote]
This former atheist perfectly illustrates the lacking in your moral relativism. And you know damn well that slavery is as was always wrong. Trying to preserve it as right just to maintain an atheist methodology is very stretched, tortured reasoning.
“I could hypothesize how a Forms-material world link would work in the case of mathematics (a little long and off topic for this post, but pretty much the canonical idea of recognizing Two-ness as the quality thatâ??s shared by two chairs and two houses, etc. Once you get the natural numbers, the rest of mathematics is in your grasp). But I didnâ??t have an analogue for how humans got bootstrap up to get even a partial understanding of objective moral law.”
This lady understands metaphysics waaaaay better than you do…[/quote]
Is it always wrong? We look back today and think “How cruel! How can a person lack compassion to such a degree that they think owning another human being is okay?”
Well, the slave owners didn’t think they lacked compassion. To the contrary, they would say “These savage niggers would regress back to their tribal, spear-chucking ways within weeks if we don’t take it upon ourselves to care of them.”
In fact the British government at the time of the black slave trade justified purchasing black slaves from Africa to its citizens by saying it was “the white man’s burden”. It was the white man’s burden to take Africans, and pull them into the modern age.
Now, this looks absurd today, as we now know blacks can take care of themselves in the modern world (even if not as well as us), but what if they did regress back to tribal-communism within weeks of being freed? Which action would then be the more compassionate?
Well it really doesn’t matter because we’re talking about morality and morality isn’t about compassion, it’s about justification and owning a living being can absolutely be justified. Hell, we buy and sell dogs as property, don’t we? Surely a dog is better off being owned by a caring master than being free… right?
Any idiot can come up with a moral code to justify whatever it is they want to do, but all a compassionate person can do is help others past their suffering. A moral person says, “This is right and everyone must do this because it’s the right thing to do!”, but a compassionate person says, “It’s their life, give them the choice and if they seek my help, I will help them the best I can.”
Which one are you, pat?
[quote]Cortes wrote:
High five!
Hey, I’ve got one, too. The next logical step is to use logical fallacies like the straw man? Like you just did here? How many times have I stated that the actual truth or falsity of your statement was completely beside the point? I can quote myself, but I just did, above. I even said “note the italics.”
Your ignoring me over and over and over to win your own special argument that you are now having with yourself does not exactly make you out to be the great debater, dude, no matter how bad you want to be. [/quote]
I’m not ignoring you, I just am interested in discussing the topic of mental health and abortion.
This post was aimed at the comments you made on the previous page.
[quote]Cortes wrote:
[quote]therajraj wrote:
[quote]Cortes wrote:
[quote]therajraj wrote:
And herein lies the problem. You are unable to grasp the point that people have a different moral code then you.
[/quote]
Oh I grasp this point perfectly. I’m trying to figure out what yours is. [/quote]
You’re pushing a bad argument. [/quote]
And what is that argument, raj? Please, tell me.
[/quote]
That abortion causes mental health risks to women. As in there is a real risk involved with getting an abortion for a woman.
Holy crap, if you’re unable to have a discussion on a subtopic, that’s fine.
[quote]Cortes wrote:
[quote]Cortes wrote:
Hey raj, if you shoot a dog in the head, and the dog dies, would you expect the dog to stay dead?[/quote]
You ignored this, btw.
Wonder why…[/quote]
Because you’re just trying to mock me?
Hrmm…
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]BrianHanson wrote:
I had promised myself that I wouldn’t post in this thread anymore because it is seriously a waste of time, however I figured one last shot at pointing out the hypocrisy of the Pro-life Movement might be in order:
How can a group of people state that they are pro-child when they give up on the child right after it is born? If you are so pro-child that you can’t imagine the world without those 1.6 million aborted fetuses per year, tell me where your compassion actually starts.
In Oklahoma " Medicaid paid for the treatment and delivery costs for more than 70 percent of the 26,100 unintended pregnancies in 2006, the only year for which state-by-state data is available…For the Sooner State, which had the 10th-highest percentage of such births among states that year, the price tag for prenatal and post-partum care for the woman and infant was $55.6 million while the federal government?s share of those costs was $117.6 million. Nationwide, federal and state government costs for treating and delivering unintended pregnancies in 2006 was more than $11 billion."
These costs are just for the pre-natal care and then delivery, passed right on to you, the taxpayer. What about the cost of raising a child in poverty? Well that is simple, the average taxpayer cost of raising a HEALTHY child through 18 years of public assistance is over $300,000 (counting medical, dental, housing, food and other assistance) a child with a disability can cost many times that depending on the severity of the disability.
If 70% of unplanned pregnancies are children that will receive public assistance and if we assume they are all healthy, the cost to the taxpayer will be roughly $33,600,000,000 for each batch of kids added to your tax bills. This doesn’t count the necessary increases in teachers, public employees (social workers, police, DFS, Social Security, Housing authority etc.) It seems you have a choice, abort the unplanned fetus, or open up your wallets, the GOP/RTL faction wants to do neither, there is a word for that…
http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2012/04/25/470967/gop-school-lunch-cuts/?mobile=nc
http://www.childwelfare.gov/systemwide/statistics/adoption.cfm
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-04-03/curbing-female-reproductive-rights-raises-taxpayer-costs.html
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/2266310/posts
http://www.nchcw.org/fup/
http://articles.baltimoresun.com/2011-06-15/features/bs-gl-reimer-teen-pregnancy-20110616_1_teen-pregnancy-teen-mother-health-care
http://www.thenationalcampaign.org/costs/pdf/states/georgia/press_release.pdf[/quote]
Think progress? Seriously? LOL!
Look B r a i n, you have to learn to make arguments with out presenting strawmen, and red herrings. Every single letter of what you wrote is completely irrelevant. It doesn’t matter if all pro-lifers were tu-tu’s and smoke blunts while sniffing cocaine off of toilet seats, the only thing that matters is whether or not you are taking a human life. Nothing else matters.
You’re argument suck so bad you are at risk of becoming a caricature of yourself.
Fact: there is no decernable break in the human life cycle from conception to death.
Fact: there is no such thing as a ‘partial’ or ‘potential’ human.
Therefore, in an abortion, you are taking a human life.
No amount of wishful thinking or external facets are going make that fact no true.[/quote]
Pat,
So hypocrisy it is then, well done. Why the fuck do you clowns care about a zygote and not give a shit about the kids when they’re here? You may consider abortion murder (the law sure as shit doesn’t, but I guess that doesn’t matter) but I guess you have no problem with the neglect and abuse of actual children once they are outside the “hoo-ha”, or you have no problem redirecting tax dollars to education, healthcare and social welfare programs, or should we just raise taxes? Which one do you choose?
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:[quote]Tiribulus wrote:[quote]countingbeans wrote:[quote]Tiribulus wrote:You may fire at will. [/quote]I give you credit for being honest. Thankfully I didn’t, but had I been made to make that choice, I don’t know that I could have let my wife go. [/quote]I believe you may need to reread my post.[/quote]Just did, and I’m not sure what I am not understanding.[/quote]I said I wouldn’t let my wife go either. Unless I’M misunderstanding YOU?
[/quote]
haha, maybe.
I was basically saying I agreed with you and would most likely choose my wife. She would punch me in the mouth for doing it, and I would most likely hate myself either way, but I’m pretty sure I would pick my wife.
Damn it thinking about this even makes me feel like shit.[/quote]As I say it would be compounded by the presence of other small children in need of their mother. Take comfort though. You will likely hit the powerball… twice… before ever facing that situation.
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
You will likely hit the powerball… twice… before ever facing that situation.
[/quote]
Yeah, I’m getting snipped in August, so, bring on powerball, haha.
Sorry raj, you only looked for cases to support your claim that there is nothing wrong with abortion. These women very well may be indifferent to abortion after a certain time period. Yet I know many women and talked with even more who regret abortion almost forty years later. The article you found never talks with the entire population of women who have had an abortion.
Let me say this another way for you - The Germans thought the exact same way as they justified the slaughter of six million Jews. Abortion has claimed at least fifty four million lives since Roe v Wade. Prove the unborn are NOT whole, distinct, complete human beings, from the earliest moments of conception. If you can prove me wrong, I would help argue your cause from that point forward and I would debate with the pro-death case, with you by my side. Or you could be honest, using logic and using modern science, to realize the death of a child is never acceptable.
[quote]therajraj wrote:I posted it already.
But here you go again:
A team at Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore reviewed 21 studies involving more than 150,000 women and found the high-quality studies showed no significant differences in long-term mental health between women who choose to abort a pregnancy and others.
“The best research does not support the existence of a ‘post-abortion syndrome’ similar to post-traumatic stress disorder,” Dr. Robert Blum, who led the study published in the journal Contraception, said in a statement.
“Based on the best available evidence, emotional harm should not be a factor in abortion policy. If the goal is to help women, program and policy decisions should not distort science to advance political agendas,” added Vignetta Charles, a researcher and doctoral student at Johns Hopkins who worked on the study.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2008/12/04/us-abortion-depression-idUSTRE4B30UE20081204[/quote]
So can I expect an answer from you soon?
[quote]therajraj wrote:
[quote]kneedragger79 wrote:
Wrong raj, prove to me that from the earliest moments of conception the unborn are NOT complete, whole, and distinct human beings.
[/quote]
…[/quote]