Welcome guest, is this your first visit? Create Account now to join.
  • Login:

Welcome to the Online Debate Network.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed.

Page 11 of 12 FirstFirst ... 7 8 9 10 11 12 LastLast
Results 201 to 220 of 233
  1. #201
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Manchester, NH
    Posts
    79
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Another abortion debate opportunity.

    The biological host becomes A societal host, with no real distinction to the theft of labor it requires.
    Or is the woman's biological contribution seen as greater than a mans sweat labor that goes to putting food on the table?
    or is the woman's sweat labor to put food on the table after birth some how substantially different than before?
    This is an interesting view point, however, here is the difference. A newborn can survive without it's mother; a fetus/embryo/etc under 21 weeks CANNOT SURVIVE WITHOUT ITS HOST. If you remove a fetus/embryo/etc from its original host and try to keep it alive, you will fail. The fetus/embryo/etc (under 21 weeks) is INCAPABLE of surviving no matter what help is given.

    Well, if you note from the definition you used. The entire life cycle doesn't have to be in the host for it to be a parasite.
    It's parasitic nature of taking energy and food from it's hosts just changes as it still requires outside energy and food from a .. host.

    your distinction is arbitrary. Perhaps it is all the more reason that he should be killed because they can.. and don't?
    No, the distinction is logical. You are using semantics to distort the point, which is because this entity is dependent on its host it is comparable to a parasite. It cannot live outside of the host until at least 21 weeks. It derives nurishment and shelter from its host.

    I linked to the materials ultimate source, which is apparently the book teaching about general parasiteolgoy. A text book for education at the medical university of south Carolina.
    And pointed it out in the post your responded too.

    https://books.google.com/books?dq=Ch...201973&f=false

    So your claim of a biased source is false. They are just using information that contradicts your position... but apparently is as authoritative as possible on a subject like this.
    I didn't say that the source was biased; I said that the site was biased and that I tend to avoid those kinds of sources. I avoid the ones on both sides because some of them leave out information in the hopes of swaying opinions. I even went on to use your source in my argument. I have stated MULTIPLE times that I do not believe the fetus/embryo/etc to be a parasite. Why are you continuing to claim otherwise?

    Well first of all, science defines it as a human from conception. It isn't after all a K-9.
    As we stand here today science is silent on what it means to be a "person". Science is not what has informed me that you are a person. And I welcome you to point me to any scientific publication on the definition of a person and who does and does not meet the requirements.
    Let me clarify what I mean by "person." I mean the "right to survive." I am also quite certain that is what we are all debating...at what point does a human organism have the right to survive? Is it when a sperm enters the egg? Is it when the fertilized egg attaches to the uterus? Am I correct in assuming that you believe a fertilized egg has the "right to survive"?
    It is not our abilities in life that show who we truly are; it is our choices. Albus Dumbledore in Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets

  2. #202
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    8,472
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Another abortion debate opportunity.

    Quote Originally Posted by LADY
    Let me clarify what I mean by "person." I mean the "right to survive." I am also quite certain that is what we are all debating...at what point does a human organism have the right to survive? Is it when a sperm enters the egg? Is it when the fertilized egg attaches to the uterus? Am I correct in assuming that you believe a fertilized egg has the "right to survive"?
    more precisely a conceived baby.

    Quote Originally Posted by LADY
    I didn't say that the source was biased; I said that the site was biased and that I tend to avoid those kinds of sources. I avoid the ones on both sides because some of them leave out information in the hopes of swaying opinions. I even went on to use your source in my argument. I have stated MULTIPLE times that I do not believe the fetus/embryo/etc to be a parasite. Why are you continuing to claim otherwise?
    right.. sorry. Parasite like.
    My point is that this is a "dependency" point, and it applies to the newborn as well as the unborn.
    It may not be the mother specifically for the newborn, but mothers are not special creatures with rights others don't have. It is not like we should protect the mother from having her energy and work sucked from her without permission, and yet not anyone else.
    neither is the mode of an umbilical cord, superior or special from any other mode of nourishment. If a mother can't be expected or obligated to supply food and nourishment in the womb, i don't see how we can expect her to actually cook!

    This is the problem with dependency, and it not being relevant to person-hood.

    Quote Originally Posted by LADY
    This is an interesting view point, however, here is the difference. A newborn can survive without it's mother; a fetus/embryo/etc under 21 weeks CANNOT SURVIVE WITHOUT ITS HOST. If you remove a fetus/embryo/etc from its original host and try to keep it alive, you will fail. The fetus/embryo/etc (under 21 weeks) is INCAPABLE of surviving no matter what help is given.
    the reason I say you are making arbitrary distinctions, is because someone must still care for the child OR IT WILL NOT SURVIVE after it is born. I see no reason why mothers should be granted special rights over anyone else based on this alone.

    Quote Originally Posted by LADY
    No, the distinction is logical. You are using semantics to distort the point, which is because this entity is dependent on its host it is comparable to a parasite. It cannot live outside of the host until at least 21 weeks. It derives nurishment and shelter from its host.
    right, your point is that it is LIKE a parasite. My point is that the ways it is like a parasite or not essentially different after it is born.
    It still can not survive without some one else giving it food and shelter. In the womb the mother provides that, and because she does you have argued that she thus has the right to abort.
    once born, SOMEONE provides those same things (though in different form). The from is not relevant, as it is essentially the same.
    This is the weakness of a dependency argument which you have been making. P.S. there are some on the pro-abortion side that do argue that newborns should be kill-able.
    To serve man.

  3. Likes Belthazor liked this post
  4. #203
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    2,087
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Another abortion debate opportunity.

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    this seems to be a shift on your part.
    There’s no shift: it precisely what targeting an embryo is the better path for all involved. The death of an embryo is hardly the same as for a baby; the mother doesn’t need to have an extensive operation and it’s done quickly.

    one of the problems with your appeal to popularity, is that in our culture the last time "the people" voted on it, they ruled it to be illegal except for a few exceptions.
    That will was then overturned by 5 judges. So our current state is more a porducte of politics then popular demand.
    Every nation recognizes the right of a woman to determine what happens to her body. This isn’t some ideal appeal to popularity, it is done so with weighing all the facts and coming up with the best solution for everyone.

    The second is that even if the majority of people wanted abortions on demand, that still has nothing to do with science, and per my evidence of what occurs to peoples opinionswhen they see the ultra sound, the more facts people have generally lead to fewer abortions.
    I’m not against facts or seeing an ultra sound. I think a woman must understand that they are taking away a life.

    Before 8 weeks absolutly not. But then, why should we accept cognitive funtion as a requirment for person-hood?
    I’m not talking about personhood - I’m talking about the cognitive ability to suffer death.

    The unborn have every potential and it is clear that at some point the unborn does have those features.
    I’m not talking about the potential - only you are. I am talking about an embryo with barely a brain and certainly no mind that can be dispatched with quickly so as to cause the least amount of suffering.

    2) The second is that God has already put a concious in people and so that pain of regret that is natural to those who have killed their unborn child, is a more powerful conviction than I couldever talk into them, and take no effor.
    They should feel guilty about their decisions. I don’t object to that at all.

    The truth that killing humans is bad, at any stage. killing a human for personal convience is actual wickedness, in any context.
    A fertilized egg is hardly a human - your emotional argument that this is anything more than a tiny bundle of cells is just ridiculous. It’s no worse than biting your nails.

    Plan B is the day after pill right?
    First of all, none of those are relevant to what I said, and extrapolating them from what I said is nonsense.
    From my position, of course I am for education, I am the one advocating to give women ultrasounds (IE more information). I am certainly for educating children for the consiquences of their actions.
    I think birthcontroll can be good, but can be abused (as some are acutally abortion drugs). Personally, I think the biggest thing girls need to be taught is that birth controll is not without consiquences
    on their body and ability to have a child in the future. I see lot of people on birth controll for 20 years who then struggle to have a child.
    Plan B just looks like every other birth-control, it uses the same drug. I'm for it as long as it is preventing pregnancy, but I'm against drugs that end pregnancies. (Because of the whole right to life thing I have argued).
    Plan B ensures that a fertilized egg doesn’t attach to the womb. Depending on how you see it, it is aborting a human.

    I don’t see evidence for contraception being a cause for not being able to have a child. That sounds like a recipe for a huge class action lawsuit so I have to reject that claim.

    --So question for you.
    At what point should it be illegal to abort? Are we at the 24 week mark now? Because I'm fine with agreeing with you there.
    24w is where the legal limit currently is but it does depend on the circumstances. I will always save the life of the mother if that is the scenario. If the child is disabled then I would also agree on allowing a woman to choose.

    Ideally, the abortion should happen as soon as possible so 24w is probably a reasonable maximum. Unless of course the mother’s life is at stake.



    Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro

  5. #204
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jun 2017
    Location
    Ontario, Canada
    Posts
    182
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Another abortion debate opportunity.

    Quote Originally Posted by Frank Apisa View Post
    A woman (or man, for that matter) should be able to remove or shape hair, get a tattoo, have long fingernails or short, get a nose job, make boobs bigger or smaller, wear glasses or contacts...without interference by government or one of us.

    Now...if you want to ask me about a particular not mention here (there are tons)...just ask about it...rather than that general thingy.

    Here: Should a woman be able to____________if she chooses to?

    Fill in that blank with anything...and I will give my opinion.
    Should a woman be able to kill another human being if she chooses to?

    Peter

  6. #205
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Manchester, NH
    Posts
    79
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Another abortion debate opportunity.

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    more precisely a conceived baby.
    In your eyes and my eyes, it is a conceived baby. Until science makes that distinction for lawmakers, we'll be at a stalemate to convince others.


    right.. sorry. Parasite like.
    My point is that this is a "dependency" point, and it applies to the newborn as well as the unborn.
    It may not be the mother specifically for the newborn, but mothers are not special creatures with rights others don't have. It is not like we should protect the mother from having her energy and work sucked from her without permission, and yet not anyone else.
    neither is the mode of an umbilical cord, superior or special from any other mode of nourishment. If a mother can't be expected or obligated to supply food and nourishment in the womb, i don't see how we can expect her to actually cook!

    This is the problem with dependency, and it not being relevant to person-hood.

    the reason I say you are making arbitrary distinctions, is because someone must still care for the child OR IT WILL NOT SURVIVE after it is born. I see no reason why mothers should be granted special rights over anyone else based on this alone.
    No, the difference is that under 21 weeks, the embryo/fetus/etc is dependent SOLELY on the woman's body. If you take it out of her body, it cannot survive. The same cannot be said about a newborn or a leachy relative. That is why the claim is that the woman alone should have the choice. It affects her body only.


    right, your point is that it is LIKE a parasite. My point is that the ways it is like a parasite or not essentially different after it is born.
    It still can not survive without some one else giving it food and shelter. In the womb the mother provides that, and because she does you have argued that she thus has the right to abort.
    once born, SOMEONE provides those same things (though in different form). The from is not relevant, as it is essentially the same.
    This is the weakness of a dependency argument which you have been making. P.S. there are some on the pro-abortion side that do argue that newborns should be kill-able
    Here is the difference: If you take the newborn away from the mother and place it with someone else, with nourishment and shelter the newborn will survive. If you take an embryo/fetus/etc (under 21 weeks) out of a mother's womb and place it with someone, with nourishment and shelter, the embryo/fetus/etc will die. Even if you were to transplant the embryo/fetus/etc into another womb, it will still die.
    It is not our abilities in life that show who we truly are; it is our choices. Albus Dumbledore in Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets

  7. #206
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jun 2017
    Location
    Ontario, Canada
    Posts
    182
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Another abortion debate opportunity.

    Quote Originally Posted by PGA2
    [1] Not so. Frank claimed it was not a human being. You disagree. At least you are not brushing aside countless factual evidence by lieu of opinion.
    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    I posted a picture earlier of the stages from an egg to embryo to a fetus. We should use that rather than quibble about emotional language such as the thing’s apparent humanity or not. I’m not afraid of saying that we are killing a living creature.
    Okay, use that picture but don't obscure what it is from the moment of conception. It IS a human being. It is not some other kind of being. What is taking place is the killing/murder of a human being. If you do not object to the indiscriminate killing of one class/group of human beings what is to stop you from doing the same with other groups like I have noted in other posts?

    Here are a few comparisons between American slavery and abortion:
    1) The culture dehumanized both (you dehumanize the unborn - you don't want to call it what it is - a human being, but make it lesser by terming it a living creature). The language both cultures use/d devalued both groups of human beings.


    2) The language dehumanized both groups. Books have been written books on the language used in dehumanizing human beings (i.e., http://21stcr.org/multimedia-2017/1-...vulnerable.pdf and https://www.amazon.ca/Dehumanizing-V.../dp/0919225195).

    3) The legal system dehumanized both groups. Slaves were the property of the owner (i.e., https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Carolina_v._Mann). The unborn is the property of the female who decides its fate (Roe vs. Wade gave the woman the option of determining its fate before a certain point in the development of the unborn). The law protected slavery and the owners right like abortion protects the woman's right to choose.

    I could point out the similarities between abortion and the German holocaust or other dehumanizing acts of history.


    Here are some pictures of aborted human beings (WARNING: graphic nature):

    https://www.bing.com/images/search?q...ures&FORM=IGRE

    Those images/pictures above remind me of the human piles of corpses during the Nazi Holocaust during WWII or the Nazi experiments dissecting human beings.

    ***

    The following article proves my point in the comparison of language, language (point #2 above) used on this very thread:

    http://blog.abolishhumanabortion.com...ation-101.html

    Let us compare:

    “THE NEGRO IS NOT A HUMAN BEING.”
    (anti-abolitionist publisher Buckner Payne)
    http://blog.abolishhumanabortion.com/2012/06/dehumanization-101.html

    Frank: "If you mean "human zygote" or "human fetus"...I would rationally and logically argue that neither is a human being...which is why they are called "a human zygote" or a "human fetus"...and not a human being."

    "A FETUS IS NOT A HUMAN BEING.”
    (pro-choice anti-abolitionist Rabbi Wolfe Kelman)

    “A SUBORDINATE AND INFERIOR
    CLASS OF BEINGS”
    (US Supreme Court decision, 1857. Dred Scott v. Stanford)
    http://blog.abolishhumanabortion.com...ation-101.html

    The language of inferiority is what we see throughout the thread to date and to document it would take too much time. Once a person stops seeing it as a developing human being the degradation has taken place.

    ***

    “THE FETUS, AT MOST, REPRESENTS
    ONLY THE POTENTIALITY OF LIFE.”
    (US Supreme Court decision, 1973. Roe v. Wade)
    http://blog.abolishhumanabortion.com...ation-101.html

    Dionysus: "But this is only the starting point; they are not “persons” (A), but rather, “potential persons” (B).
    If “B” is only potential “A”, then it follows that “B” is not “A”. An egg is not a chicken, nor is an acorn a tree. They may be genetically complete, but they not fully developed things.
    But every human cell also contains all 46 chromosomes. And if we’re arguing that rights of personhood should be granted to potential persons i.e. zygotes - rights that override the agency of its host – then why wouldn’t we extend those same rights to skin cultures and blood samples?"


    SharmaK : "I wholly agree with you here that a potential human life is lost. An abortion is the literal termination of a life and it shouldn’t be taken lightly. To call it a person is a bit much until you reach a certain point."

    SharmaK : "A small bunch of cells, no matter what they might think they’re going to turn out is hardly the same as killing a baby."

    Sharma: "Of course it’s honest: no-one is denying that a life is being terminated but we also recognize that not all life is really the same."

    SharmaK : Post 31: "I’d love to hear a religious argument but I have yet to be presented one that makes sense for non-believers. I was trying to save you the embarrassment of having to offer one up but if you choose to invoke your God and your religion in as a justification for not aborting a baby, then that’s great: don’t abort your child. By the same token, don’t tell other people what to do with their own bodies and their own lives and keep your personal religious convictions personal if that’s all you have."

    The old, "If you don't like slavery don't own a slave; if you don't like abortion don't have one!"

    SharmaK : Post 123: "It's easier to think of a fetus as being a semi-human because we can avoid the fact that we're really extinguishing a real life. There may well come a time when we realize that even a fetus has some kind of consciousness that a more fully developed baby might have but that is not the case now. it's convenient to believe that a small bunch of cells doesn't have the awareness to call themselves human."


    ***

    “THE NEGRO IS...ONE OF THE LOWER ANIMALS”
    (American professor Charles Carroll, 1900)
    http://blog.abolishhumanabortion.com/2012/06/dehumanization-101.html


    ***

    “FREE BLACKS IN OUR COUNTRY ARE... A CONTAGION”
    (American Colonization Society, 1815-1830)

    “PREGNANCY WHEN NOT WANTED IS A DISEASE...
    IN FACT, A VENEREAL DISEASE.”
    (Pro-abortion bio-ethicist Joseph Fletcher, 1979)

    These claims were wed together by the eugenicist and Planned Parenthood founder Margaret Sanger who infamously remarked:

    “We don't want the word to go out that
    we want to exterminate the Negro population”
    (Margaret Sanger's December 19, 1939 letter to Dr. Clarence Gamble)
    http://blog.abolishhumanabortion.com...ation-101.html


    Frank: "Exactly.
    Or cancer cells...or tumors...or fingernails or beards."

    SharmaK : Post 203: "A fertilized egg is hardly a human - your emotional argument that this is anything more than a tiny bundle of cells is just ridiculous. It’s no worse than biting your nails."

    ***

    “NEGROES ARE PARASITES.”
    (Dr. T. Brady, 1909)

    “THE FETUS IS A PARASITE.”
    (Abortion rights activist Rosalind Pollack Petcheskey, 1984)
    http://blog.abolishhumanabortion.com/2012/06/dehumanization-101.html

    ladykrimson: Post 178: "I am aware that a fetus is not technically classified as a parasite, however, it fits all of the classifications."

    ***

    "Pro-abortion advocates have been known to describe the unborn fetus as an amphibian or fish and consider him or her more similar to a lower animal than a human."

    “LIKE...A PRIMITIVE ANIMAL
    THAT’S POKED WITH A STICK.”
    (The pro-choice physician Dr. Hart Peterson describing fetal movement in 1985)

    “WHY NOT PERMIT ABORTION
    IN THE FIRST TRIMESTER,
    WHEN THE EMBRYO IS STILL
    A SALT WATER CREATURE...?”
    (Pro-abortion surgeon George Crile, 1985)
    http://blog.abolishhumanabortion.com/2012/06/dehumanization-101.html

    SharmaK : Post 123: "As I point out - it is taken that the situation is similar to a brain dead adult: it is certainly alive and living but there is nothing recognizable as a conscious agent. There are no eyes to see, no mouth to speak, no limbs to sign with, no recognition detected, no intelligence found, and no emotions - it's just a precursor entity that one day would have such qualities but because they currently don't, then it's similar to stomping on a roach."

    SharmaK : Post 127: "Even looking at it, it's a little hard to distinguish it from other fetus at that age. Also, just Googling around a bit shows a human and animal fetus is similar. So I have a hard time feeling emotionally that it's really a human."

    ***

    Quote Originally Posted by PGA2
    [2] Since you acknowledge it is a human being, what makes human beings valuable? Once you discriminate and degrade one group of human beings what stops you from doing so to another? That is the point. How can you justify killing a human being because it is not as developed as another human being? That is the argument you gave above.
    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    I’m not jousting the killing based on it’s age. I am arguing that abortions are legal now because of the past history of not allowing it has caused untold deaths of women and that we are only discussing when it should be allowed to cause this death.
    Again, you failed to answer my question.

    What makes human beings valuable? Can you answer that question?

    Is it that they are human beings? If not, then what is to stop some dictator from labeling some human beings as non-human; if not, what is there to stop human discrimination?

    I used the level of development argument. Age was not the factor I took into account. You were speaking of its development when you recounted its lack of brain development/activity/sentience/function and other such attributes.

    Anything can be made legal. It all depends who is in power. The question should be, "Is it okay to take the life of another human being?" I have argued once you permit (devalue) the taking of one life or one class of human beings you open the door to do it with others.

    You are using a poor argument, IMO. That is, allow killing it to protect the woman doing it herself. Would you allow her to kill her newborn to avoid someone else doing it?

    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    It is no more better or worse than euthanizing a brain dead car victim rather than keeping the body alive indefinitely. Once there are signs of consciousness and agency, that killing becomes a murder.
    I appeal to an argument from The Caes for Life, p. 39 below.

    The biological difference between the two is that in the brain dead car victim the body is/has shut down, and the human body is incapable of operating as a complete, coordinated, independent, functioning human being. Not so with the human embryo/zygote/fetus/unborn. What is lost in death, per The Case for Life, p. 39, is "the ability to function as a coordinated organism rather than merely as a group of living cells...[dead] cells no longer function together in a coordinated way."

    So the unborn is different from the brain dead. Everything needed is developing and coordinating that makes a human being human in/by nature. Dead cells do not coordinate the function of the whole organism.

    Quote Originally Posted by PGA2
    You advocate the woman decide whether or not to kill her offspring. Unless you can show me that the unborn is something other than a human being what is the difference between killing the human being before birth as opposed to after birth? I appeal to the SLED example - size, level of development, environment, dependency. That is the fundamental difference as to why you justify killing it before but not after birth, primarily its level of development. These same four standards apply to a newborn in comparison to an adult human being.
    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    Would you be against the plan-B pill? Would you be against an abortion when the mother’s life is in danger? What if the child were to end up being severely disabled or mentally impaired?
    If the mother's life is in danger and the unborn cannot be saved - yes. As for Plan-B, I do not know enough about it to make an educated comment now.

    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    There are plenty of good reasons for an abortion - are you against all of them because they ‘human’? What if it were a product of rape or incest?
    http://www.equip.org/article/abortio...ortion-rights/

    First, I would like to comment that rape and incest only make up a tiny percentage of abortions, not that I condone either practice.

    Second, should an evil to a woman result in the death of an innocent human being no matter how dramatically painful it will be to carry the human being to term? The rapist needs to be punished, not the unborn human being.

    "Issues with rape-related statistics: The AGI-based figure of 1% of abortions for cases of rape or incest is widely cited. However, it is the product of a limited survey by an organization with a stated objective of advocating unlimited access to abortion services. It is thus desirable to seek an independent source of such figures, such as that provided by the state reported statistics reviewed below. Evaluating this claim also involves issues of reliability of rape-related statistics."
    http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/policy/abortion/abreasons.html

    Quote Originally Posted by PGA2
    I think the mothers feel guilty because they know they are taking a human life.
    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    Of course they are aware of that fact. That’s kinda the point of an abortion!
    The point is often to get rid of an unwanted inconvenience.
    REASONS GIVEN FOR ABORTIONS: AGI SURVEY, 1987 [3, 4]
    unready for responsibility = 21%
    is too immature or young to have child = 11
    has problems with relationship or wants to avoid single parenthood = 12%
    can't afford baby now = 21%
    concerned about how having baby would change her life = 16%


    REASONS GIVEN FOR ABORTIONS: AGI SURVEY, 2004 [6]
    unready = 25%
    is too immature or young to have child = 7%
    has problems with relationship or wants to avoid single parenthood = 8%
    has all the children she wanted or all children are grown = 19%
    http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/poli...abreasons.html

    Quote Originally Posted by PGA2
    No, I recognize that self-consciousness is developing. I understand it is in the very nature of the human being. I also know that development begins at conception. Once you devalue one human life, regardless of the 1) degree of development (as you do here), 2) environment (1940's Germany instead of the USA; present-day North Korea instead of the USA), 3) dependency (in a coma and can't feed itself), 4) size (smaller than another human being), the door is open to doing it with others. Not meeting YOUR standards expressed above is concerning. The human being is no longer recognized as valuable.
    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    Meh, it’s not a slippery slope and you know it. Nobody is saying that all embryos can be killed for no reason: it’s considered a double murder if a pregnant woman is killed so you’re simply wrong to make these irrelevant comparisons with Nazi’s (which incidentally do nothing to help your credibility in this discussion).
    Not at all.
    https://www.abortionfacts.com/litera...dden-holocaust

    Quote Originally Posted by PGA2
    A mercy killing? You associate killing the unborn in the same way you justify killing a brain dead adult??
    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    In terms of the alternatives, yes.
    What alternatives?

    Quote Originally Posted by PGA2
    I would think you see the human being as intrinsically valuable. If you don't, it just doesn't matter to you what happens to another human being. "Step this way please, Sharma, the government wants to dissect your mind while you are alive, slowly, without anesthesia, to discover more about you!"
    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    A human “being” sure, a human “embryo”, not so much.
    They are the same - both human beings.

    Peter

  8. #207
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    2,087
    Post Thanks / Like

    Another abortion debate opportunity.

    Quote Originally Posted by PGA2 View Post
    Okay, use that picture but don't obscure what it is from the moment of conception. It IS a human being. It is not some other kind of being. What is taking place is the killing/murder of a human being. If you do not object to the indiscriminate killing of one class/group of human beings what is to stop you from doing the same with other groups like I have noted in other posts?
    It is an embryo of a human being; or a fetus of a human being; or a baby. And yes, it is a life being extinguished: it’s baffling that this continues to be pointed out. It’s literally the point of the abortion.

    Here are a few comparisons between American slavery and abortion:
    1) The culture dehumanized both (you dehumanize the unborn - you don't want to call it what it is - a human being, but make it lesser by terming it a living creature). The language both cultures use/d devalued both groups of human beings.
    The distinction is not to dehumanize the embryo but to point out that if you’re going to abort it then that is a good time to do because there isn’t much brain function to feel the pain and no awareness because the frontal cortex (arguably what makes us actually “human”) doesn’t really exist.

    So yes, it is meant to “dehumanize” the embryo - to make it more ethical to kill.

    3) The legal system dehumanized both groups. Slaves were the property of the owner (i.e., https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Carolina_v._Mann). The unborn is the property of the female who decides its fate (Roe vs. Wade gave the woman the option of determining its fate before a certain point in the development of the unborn). The law protected slavery and the owners right like abortion protects the woman's right to choose.
    Yes, a woman decides what happens to her own body. Whilst that baby is in the womb, it is part of her body - it’s why there’s a limit: at some point post viability of some percent (50%) it is considered an independent enough life that abortion is unwarranted. There would have been plenty of time to terminate earlier or a birth could be forced.

    I could point out the similarities between abortion and the German holocaust or other dehumanizing acts of history.
    Meh, I’m sure you could but they would be as inaccurate as your slavery one. All you’re doing is projecting our common emotions from one situation to another one that is not related.

    Here are some pictures of aborted human beings (WARNING: graphic nature):
    It’s 2017 and the internet has been around a long time. I know that these (and much worse things) look like. Plus, I get the privilege of seeing a partial birth abortion on a daily basis in TapaTalk.

    No one is denying what is happening but legal abortion is better than what came before which was the death of both the mother and baby. Now it is done legally which allows the government to step in an make sure it is done safely and ethically.

    Countries with blanket bans on abortion have seen terrible deaths.


    The following article proves my point in the comparison of language, language (point #2 above) used on this very thread:
    The language distinction is important because it helps to be accurate. No one is denying there is a death involved because that is the point of the abortion. However, the distinction between an embryo, a fetus and all the stages through to birth allows us to determine the line between legality and illegality. It ensures that most of the cases where abortions have happened are decided quickly and dealt with early. To not recognize that is to not understand the point of legalizing in the first place.

    Your extensive list just clarifies that people use language to help determine how they make decisions or come to conclusions. It’s hardly a shocker. Vegans probably see that we meat-eaters are also horrible and could come up with an equal list of all the horrible, nazi-like, slavery supporting comments that you have made in the past too. But that line of argument is only effective if you’re already a Vegan: it doesn’t really persuade meat eaters that they should eat meat. It just highlights just how far the Vegans have missed the point of eating meat. Just as you have missed the point of abortions.

    What makes human beings valuable? Can you answer that question?
    Nothing from a proper perspective- we’re at the top of the food chain and we have evolved to be the most intelligence species in the known universe. We did so by plundering the planet, making animals extinct whilst polluting or destroying their living habitats.
    From a personal perspective, every human is part of a community and a family, and our society makes each individual precious and important.

    Is it that they are human beings? If not, then what is to stop some dictator from labeling some human beings as non-human; if not, what is there to stop human discrimination?
    Then we have genocide such as what is happening to the small Muslim community in the Philippines as of today, whilst the world watches on. We have Americans in the West rail against Muslims and their culture and religion. We also have active racism against African Americans in the US. And women are just about to get out of a situation where they can discriminated in the work place and sexually harassed.

    Even here on ODN, conservative Christians feel free to liken homosexuals to pedophiles whilst denying them the right to marry. And they have no problems calling the transgendered mentally ill.

    So it is already happening before your very eyes, should you choose to open them.

    Anything can be made legal. It all depends who is in power. The question should be, "Is it okay to take the life of another human being?" I have argued once you permit (devalue) the taking of one life or one class of human beings you open the door to do it with others.
    Slippery slope arguments are generally silly. There’s no direct path from abortion to genocide. And as I pointed out just above, there are plenty of dehumanizing going on here too.

    You are using a poor argument, IMO. That is, allow killing it to protect the woman doing it herself. Would you allow her to kill her newborn to avoid someone else doing it?
    You misunderstand the situations where abortions are needed. For rape, incest, viability, health and life of mother. Do you agree that those are situations where abortions should also be banned?

    I appeal to an argument from The Caes for Life, p. 39 below.
    Well, perhaps there should be a movement where every pro-lifer female chooses to carry on the rest of the birth and raise the child. Pro-life men can choose to contribute half their salary to raise this life.

    Would you do that? Are you so pro-life that you would make your own sacrifices to raise a child out of poverty to assist in raising a severely disabled child? Do you do so already?

    I suspect not, and that’s certainly not the case for most of the virtue signalers in this pro life movement. They just want to control other people’s lives and other people’s decisions and force them to live with mistakes, whilst denying them the very education or contraceptions they need.

    So color me not impressed with the “case for life” - life begins at birth and ends at death. Until you’ve shown me you really care for life I reject your arguments. What you care about is birth and after that you hypocritically walk away.

    If the mother's life is in danger and the unborn cannot be saved - yes. As for Plan-B, I do not know enough about it to make an educated comment now.
    Plan-B ensures that a fertilized egg doesn’t implant in the womb. It’s basically an abortion but at an extremely early stage - days at best. It’s used in cases of rape but also to avoid pregnancy in situations where contraceptions have failed.

    So how do you feel about that? This is a practical solution that covers most cases.


    Second, should an evil to a woman result in the death of an innocent human being no matter how dramatically painful it will be to carry the human being to term? The rapist needs to be punished, not the unborn human being.
    But then the woman for nine months at least is punished and reminded of her horror. It may not be fair to the child, but priority should be given to the actual living humans and not to ones that don’t exist outside of the womb.


    The point is often to get rid of an unwanted inconvenience.
    Then we need to do better education, allow free contraceptions and just try and avoid the situation to begin with. I don’t mind taking the hit that this is a stain on our society: it just means we need to do a better job to ensure our children understand the actions and consequences of sex.

    What alternatives?
    Coat hangers in a back alley from some quack at best, or the death of women at worst.

  9. #208
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jun 2017
    Location
    Ontario, Canada
    Posts
    182
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Another abortion debate opportunity.

    Quote Originally Posted by PGA2
    Okay, use that picture but don't obscure what it is from the moment of conception. It IS a human being. It is not some other kind of being. What is taking place is the killing/murder of a human being. If you do not object to the indiscriminate killing of one class/group of human beings what is to stop you from doing the same with other groups like I have noted in other posts?
    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    It is an embryo of a human being; or a fetus of a human being; or a baby. And yes, it is a life being extinguished: it’s baffling that this continues to be pointed out. It’s literally the point of the abortion.
    Again, you devalue its worth by shady definitions. "An embryo of a human being." What does that mean? What IS an embryo OF a human being? It is a separate, unique, individual human being. It means an embryo, a fetus; a newborn, an adult IS a human being. That cell, that zygote (from conception), that 'blob', that embryo, was you. It did not become you. It could be no one but you.

    "...it is a life being extinguished..."

    Again this is a vague statement. What kind of 'life being' is it? It is a human being, a term you are finding very hard to express; not a bunch of cells, but a distinct, unique, human being.

    Quote Originally Posted by PGA2
    Here are a few comparisons between American slavery and abortion:
    1) The culture dehumanized both (you dehumanize the unborn - you don't want to call it what it is - a human being, but make it lesser by terming it a living creature). The language both cultures use/d devalued both groups of human beings.
    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    The distinction is not to dehumanize the embryo but to point out that if you’re going to abort it then that is a good time to do because there isn’t much brain function to feel the pain and no awareness because the frontal cortex (arguably what makes us actually “human”) doesn’t really exist.
    Again the question of abortion is a moral question that speaks of the intrinsic value of a human being, no matter how developed or underdeveloped. Abortion kills/murders a human being.

    Unless you can determine the unborn, at any stage of its growth, is not a human being the question of humanness becomes one of worth - intrinsic worth. If the human being does not have worth for what it is - human - then why stop at the unborn?

    If it is permissible to kill one innocent human being (unborn) because we whimsically choose to, then why is it not permissible to kill another innocent human being (born)?

    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    So yes, it is meant to “dehumanize” the embryo - to make it more ethical to kill.
    Then it is immoral unless you want to argue that dehumanizing humans is perfectly moral. What you are saying is that you find it justifiable or it is justifiable to many to dehumanize human beings to achieve a purpose, the purpose of eliminating them from humanity because they are inconvenient. So, if you can get enough people, or if those in power choose to act, then let them kill whoever they deem undesirable!!!

    "You're next!"

    It seems that the way of thinking can always be justified for someone else. When it applies to each individual then they find it a different matter.

    Quote Originally Posted by PGA2
    3) The legal system dehumanized both groups. Slaves were the property of the owner (i.e., https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Carolina_v._Mann). The unborn is the property of the female who decides its fate (Roe vs. Wade gave the woman the option of determining its fate before a certain point in the development of the unborn). The law protected slavery and the owners right like abortion protects the woman's right to choose.
    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    Yes, a woman decides what happens to her own body. Whilst that baby is in the womb, it is part of her body - it’s why there’s a limit: at some point post viability of some percent (50%) it is considered an independent enough life that abortion is unwarranted. There would have been plenty of time to terminate earlier or a birth could be forced.
    The human being inside her body is not her body. It has a body of its own. The parent (in this case the female) has a natural responsibility to protect and nurture her newborn and to not do so results in child abuse charges, but you are saying this is not the case with the human being in her womb. Abuse it as much as you like. The woman's body takes priority over whether someone lives or dies.

    You do not have the CHOICE of using your body to the detriment of other human beings, but she does??? Where is the morality in that?

    If I carry a newborn on my body, I don't have the right to destroy it because it is in contact with my body. If the newborn wants something to eat, I don't have the right to kill it because I don't want to feed it or because it is an inconvenience to me.

    Quote Originally Posted by PGA2
    I could point out the similarities between abortion and the German holocaust or other dehumanizing acts of history.
    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    Challenge to support a claim.
    Please verify your assertion.
    I challenge you to prove an unborn human embryo is not a human being.
    I challenge you to prove a human slave is not a human being.
    I challenge you to prove the human worth of these two groups is not devalued/dehumanized.

    My comparisons are not inaccurate. You throw out these blanket assertions. A slave is a human being. A human embryo is a human being. They are both devalued human beings. Their human worth is diminished by other human beings. I'm not projecting emotions. I'm stating facts.

    Quote Originally Posted by PGA2
    Here are some pictures of aborted human beings (WARNING: graphic nature):
    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    It’s 2017 and the internet has been around a long time. I know that these (and much worse things) look like. Plus, I get the privilege of seeing a partial birth abortion on a daily basis in TapaTalk.
    It's 2018. (^8

    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    No one is denying what is happening but legal abortion is better than what came before which was the death of both the mother and baby. Now it is done legally which allows the government to step in an make sure it is done safely and ethically.
    Look at the abortion rates in the early 1960's, before the peace movement and free sex/sexual revolution.
    Look what happens with Roe v. Wade and beyond. This is just USA statistics.

    http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/poli...husabrate.html

    Abortion skyrocketed with legalization.

    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    Countries with blanket bans on abortion have seen terrible deaths.
    In many countries which legalized abortion, their rates have spiked. When you authorize killing more people are going to die.

    "Romania used to have strict abortion laws but ever since the abortion was legalized up to 14 weeks of pregnancy for any reason, the abortion rate in the country has gotten astonishingly high."

    "Bulgaria
    The studies show that there was a huge abortion rate spike worldwide in 1990. It was partly because many liberal parties that ruled all over the Europe lifted restrictions on abortions in 1990."

    "The main reason the abortion rate in Hungary is so high is because the country has had a pro-choice stance for most of its existence. Abortion has been legal without any restriction on reason in the country since 1950."

    "Russia has the second most number of abortions in a year after China. The rate is so high in a developed nation might come as a shock but considering the country is so huge with several different cultures it becomes a lot less surprising. Plus the country has legalized abortion since 1920 and these regions include countries like Belarus, Estonia, Ukraine, Crimea, Moldova and others after the collapse of the Soviet Union."
    https://www.whichcountry.co/countries-with-the-highest-total-number-of-abortions/

    ***

    https://top5ofanything.com/list/eafb...r-of-Abortions

    https://www.worldblaze.in/countries-...bortion-rates/

    "Countries: Belarus, Bulgaria, Czech Republic (pictured), Hungary, Poland, Republic of Moldova, Romania, Russian Federation, Slovakia, Ukraine
    This region has the highest abortion rate in the world, at 43 abortions per 1,000 women."

    Which of these countries is a third world country?

    More women kill their unborns, per thousand in these civilized countries than anywhere else in the world. These are the countries with modern 'safe' abortion clinics.

    https://www.cbsnews.com/pictures/abo...es-highest/19/

    Quote Originally Posted by PGA2
    The following article proves my point in the comparison of language, language (point #2 above) used on this very thread:
    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    The language distinction is important because it helps to be accurate. No one is denying there is a death involved because that is the point of the abortion. However, the distinction between an embryo, a fetus and all the stages through to birth allows us to determine the line between legality and illegality. It ensures that most of the cases where abortions have happened are decided quickly and dealt with early. To not recognize that is to not understand the point of legalizing in the first place.
    The language distinction shows how people dehumanize groups of human beings, which allows them to do whatever they want to them.

    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    Your extensive list just clarifies that people use language to help determine how they make decisions or come to conclusions. It’s hardly a shocker. Vegans probably see that we meat-eaters are also horrible and could come up with an equal list of all the horrible, nazi-like, slavery supporting comments that you have made in the past too. But that line of argument is only effective if you’re already a Vegan: it doesn’t really persuade meat eaters that they should eat meat. It just highlights just how far the Vegans have missed the point of eating meat. Just as you have missed the point of abortions.
    Oh, great!

    "Let's dehumanize this group of human beings; then once they are worthless we'll kill 'em!"

    Quote Originally Posted by PGA2
    What makes human beings valuable? Can you answer that question?
    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    Nothing from a proper perspective- we’re at the top of the food chain and we have evolved to be the most intelligence species in the known universe.
    A proper perspective? "Okay, nothing valuable about you as a human being," as he reached for his gun.

    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    We did so by plundering the planet, making animals extinct whilst polluting or destroying their living habitats.
    We devalued them like humans devalue human beings.

    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    From a personal perspective, every human is part of a community and a family, and our society makes each individual precious and important.
    Not each individual; only those it likes and are not inconvenient.

    Quote Originally Posted by PGA2
    Is it that they are human beings? If not, then what is to stop some dictator from labeling some human beings as non-human; if not, what is there to stop human discrimination?
    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    Then we have genocide such as what is happening to the small Muslim community in the Philippines as of today, whilst the world watches on. We have Americans in the West rail against Muslims and their culture and religion. We also have active racism against African Americans in the US. And women are just about to get out of a situation where they can discriminated in the work place and sexually harassed.
    Which goes to my point that when humans are devalued atrocities happen. The most significant human genocide in the history of the world to date is abortion - 1.5 BILLION since 1980.

    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    Even here on ODN, conservative Christians feel free to liken homosexuals to pedophiles whilst denying them the right to marry. And they have no problems calling the transgendered mentally ill.
    Your statement, enlarge, is a generalization. Some Christian liken some homosexuals as pedophiles, and some are pedophiles.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_...ve_Association

    As for marriage, a Christian believes God ordained marriage between a man and woman. What I find fascinating is that the liberal leftist will, on the one hand, preach tolerance and open-mindedness, then be intolerant to the Christian having a view that opposes their own.

    Why is your value system better? I would be glad to look at morality from your perspective to see how you arrive at better. If there is no ultimate standard, what makes any standard 'better' than any other?

    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    So it is already happening before your very eyes, should you choose to open them.
    Yes, it is. I am aware of how same-sex couples are dehumanized and persecuted to the point of death in some Middle-eastern counties and Russia (for starters), and I believe it is wrong. As I have been arguing all along, human beings have intrinsic value, and once one group is devalued, it opens the door for others.

    I also believe that some things are wrong, but that does not give me an excuse to treat a human being as a lesser being. I can argue the point as to why I believe this, however.

    Quote Originally Posted by PGA2
    Anything can be made legal. It all depends who is in power. The question should be, "Is it okay to take the life of another human being?" I have argued once you permit (devalue) the taking of one life or one class of human beings you open the door to do it with others.
    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    Slippery slope arguments are generally silly. There’s no direct path from abortion to genocide. And as I pointed out just above, there are plenty of dehumanizing going on here too.
    My statement is true. Dictators or those in power are often ruthless in disposing of those in opposition. That is how they retain power.
    Examples of ruthless dictators: Stalin, Hitler, Mao, Pol Pot, Franco, Kim Jong-Un.
    Examples of ruthless regimes: the slaughter of 80,000 to 200,000 Hutus by the Tutsi; the cultural revolution by Mao; the Killing Fields of the Khmer Rouge, etc.

    "Analysis of 20,000 mass grave sites by the DC-Cam Mapping Program and Yale University indicate at least 1,386,734 victims of execution. Estimates of the total number of deaths resulting from Khmer Rouge policies, including disease and starvation, range from 1.7 to 2.5 million out of a 1975 population of roughly 8 million. In 1979, Vietnam invaded Democratic Kampuchea and toppled the Khmer Rouge regime."

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khmer_...Killing_Fields

    Quote Originally Posted by PGA2
    You are using a poor argument, IMO. That is, allow killing it to protect the woman doing it herself. Would you allow her to kill her newborn to avoid someone else doing it?
    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    You misunderstand the situations where abortions are needed. For rape, incest, viability, health and life of mother. Do you agree that those are situations where abortions should also be banned?
    I already expressed in which case I see it justified - when the mother's life is threatened and the unborn cannot be saved.

    Quote Originally Posted by PGA2
    I appeal to an argument from The Caes for Life, p. 39 below.
    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    Well, perhaps there should be a movement where every pro-lifer female chooses to carry on the rest of the birth and raise the child. Pro-life men can choose to contribute half their salary to raise this life.
    Or those who have sex could take the necessary precautions. I'm for contraception as long as it does not kill the unborn but is used to prevent pregnacy in the first place.

    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    Would you do that? Are you so pro-life that you would make your own sacrifices to raise a child out of poverty to assist in raising a severely disabled child? Do you do so already?
    I don't like to advertise what I do, but I sponsor some less fortunate and have for decades. I still do, but I have limited resources since retirement.

    Your example is not the point; the point is whether killing innocent human beings is wrong, not what I do. That is what the argument is about. You are attaching the man, not the argument.

    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    I suspect not, and that’s certainly not the case for most of the virtue signalers in this pro life movement. They just want to control other people’s lives and other people’s decisions and force them to live with mistakes, whilst denying them the very education or contraceptions they need.
    Much of the money to help the poor comes from caring Christians or faith based countries.

    https://www.sharefaith.com/blog/2013...-world-hunger/

    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    So color me not impressed with the “case for life” - life begins at birth and ends at death. Until you’ve shown me you really care for life I reject your arguments. What you care about is birth and after that you hypocritically walk away.
    Not true. I am aware that God instructs me to love my neighbor as myself. He is a God of the LIVING, not the dead. He cares how I interact with others. He cares about life and justice. I care about life and justice.

    Quote Originally Posted by PGA2
    If the mother's life is in danger and the unborn cannot be saved - yes. As for Plan-B, I do not know enough about it to make an educated comment now.
    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    Plan-B ensures that a fertilized egg doesn’t implant in the womb. It’s basically an abortion but at an extremely early stage - days at best. It’s used in cases of rape but also to avoid pregnancy in situations where contraceptions have failed.

    So how do you feel about that? This is a practical solution that covers most cases.
    As long as it does not take an already living human beings life, I'm for it. If there is a chance it takes a life, I'm against it.

    Quote Originally Posted by PGA2
    Second, should an evil to a woman result in the death of an innocent human being no matter how dramatically painful it will be to carry the human being to term? The rapist needs to be punished, not the unborn human being.
    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    But then the woman for nine months at least is punished and reminded of her horror. It may not be fair to the child, but priority should be given to the actual living humans and not to ones that don’t exist outside of the womb.
    Again, you discriminate against the unborn with your words.

    Remember, there are four secondary differences between the unborn and newborn; SLED - Size, Level of development, ENVIRONMENT, Dependency.

    So, you devalue the human being, this time because of environment/location.

    How is one's environment connected to who one is? Does going from the kitchen to the living room change who you are?

    Quote Originally Posted by PGA2
    The point is often to get rid of an unwanted inconvenience.
    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    Then we need to do better education, allow free contraceptions and just try and avoid the situation to begin with. I don’t mind taking the hit that this is a stain on our society: it just means we need to do a better job to ensure our children understand the actions and consequences of sex.
    I agree whole-heartedly!

    Quote Originally Posted by PGA2
    What alternatives?
    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    Coat hangers in a back alley from some quack at best, or the death of women at worst.
    Coat hangers should not be an alternative. Because the life of the unborn human being has been so devalued taking the life is not always seen for what it is - murder.

    Peter

    ---------- Post added at 12:50 AM ---------- Previous post was at 12:45 AM ----------

    Concerning my challenge, here is your statement:
    Meh, I’m sure you could but they would be as inaccurate as your slavery one. All you’re doing is projecting our common emotions from one situation to another one that is not related.

    ---------- Post added at 12:58 AM ---------- Previous post was at 12:50 AM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    The distinction is not to dehumanize the embryo but to point out that if you’re going to abort it then that is a good time to do because there isn’t much brain function to feel the pain and no awareness because the frontal cortex (arguably what makes us actually “human”) doesn’t really exist.
    Concerning your statement about brain function and the frontal cortex, anyone who is interested can read the 14 myths and facts in the following:

    https://www.princeton.edu/~prolife/articles/wdhbb.html

    Myth 13: "A human person begins with brain birth, the formation of the primitive nerve net, or the formation of the cortex all physiological structures necessary to support thinking and feeling."

    Fact 13: Such claims are all pure mental speculation, the product of imposing philosophical (or theological) concepts on the scientific data, and have no scientific evidence to back them up. As the well-known neurological researcher D. Gareth Jones has succinctly put it, the parallelism between "brain death" and "brain birth" is scientifically invalid. "Brain death" is the gradual or rapid cessation of the functions of a brain. "Brain birth" is the very gradual acquisition of the functions of a developing neural system. This developing neural system is not a brain. He questions, in fact, the entire assumption and asks what neurological reasons there might be for concluding that an incapacity for consciousness becomes a capacity for consciousness once this point is passed. Jones continues that the alleged symmetry is not as strong as is sometimes assumed, and that it has yet to be provided with a firm biological base.

    Myth 14: "A person is defined in terms of the active exercising of rational attributes (e.g., thinking, willing, choosing, self-consciousness, relating to the world around one, etc.), and/or the active exercising of sentience (e.g., the feeling of pain and pleasure)."

    Fact 14: Again, these are philosophical terms or concepts, which have been illegitimately imposed on the scientific data. The scientific fact is that the brain, which is supposed to be the physiological support for both "rational attributes" and "sentience," is not actually completely developed until young adulthood. Quoting Moore:
    "Although it is customary to divide human development into prenatal (before birth) and postnatal (after birth) periods, birth is merely a dramatic event during development resulting in a change in environment. Development does not stop at birth. Important changes, in addition to growth, occur after birth (e.g., development of teeth and female breasts). The brain triples in weight between birth and 16 years; most developmental changes are completed by the age of 25."



    Peter

  10. #209
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    2,087
    Post Thanks / Like

    Another abortion debate opportunity.

    Quote Originally Posted by PGA2 View Post
    Again, you devalue its worth by shady definitions. "An embryo of a human being." What does that mean? What IS an embryo OF a human being? It is a separate, unique, individual human being. It means an embryo, a fetus; a newborn, an adult IS a human being. That cell, that zygote (from conception), that 'blob', that embryo, was you. It did not become you. It could be no one but you.

    "...it is a life being extinguished..."

    Again this is a vague statement. What kind of 'life being' is it? It is a human being, a term you are finding very hard to express; not a bunch of cells, but a distinct, unique, human being.
    Let me make this easy for you since you appear to be barking up the wrong moral tree.

    Firstly, nobody is masking that a human being is killed during an abortion. That is the point of the abortion; just like an execution, it is to ensure that there is one less human being on the planet. The moral decision to legally allow for abortion has been made with a preponderance of all the issues at hand. And even you (below) agree that there are circumstances where abortions make sense.

    Secondly, *given* that abortion is allowed and managed then the point of the distinctions between the different stages, is to ensure that it is done with the least amount of suffering - hence it is done when the brain is the least developed and as early in the pregnancy as possible.

    You’re still arguing something that has already been settled in laws around the world, from multiple societies and religious perspectives, under many conditions around the world ( source https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_law). You even agree that abortions should happen under some circumstances.

    So the only relevant arguments are to consider the conditions as to when the abortion is allowed:

    1. What is the situation with the mother (poverty, mental/physical health of mother or child, how the woman got pregnant - rape or incest)
    2. At what developmental stage is the baby.

    That’s it. All your linguistic arguments get in the way of discussing the latter. I see that below you support abortions for health reasons but at the same time you are refusing to acknowledge the different stages of development. By your own logic then if we knew from an embryonic stage that the baby is unviable, you would be find killing up to when it was born?

    Because you both accept that the baby should be killed already but at the same time don’t care about the finer distinctions, once the moral decisions have been made you are saying it is morally equal to abort at the embryonic stage as it is during later development.

    Correct? You are in the same pro-abortion boat as me and we are just arguing about what situations are moral. However, at least I am making some distinctions as to the stage of development of the baby. You appear to find those distinctions reprehensible which puts you into some terrible situations as we will see below.

    For the rest of the post, I will not repeat my arguments so I’ll be skipping a lot of what you’ve written because you are basically saying the same thing continuously.

    If it is permissible to kill one innocent human being (unborn) because we whimsically choose to, then why is it not permissible to kill another innocent human being (born)?
    You tell me. You support abortion for health reasons and you also appear therefore to support that we wait until the baby is born to do the killing.


    Then it is immoral unless you want to argue that dehumanizing humans is perfectly moral.
    I disagree that there is any “dehumanizing” going on - the distinctions are important so that we can determine the best possible time period for allowing abortions.

    You do not have the CHOICE of using your body to the detriment of other human beings, but she does??? Where is the morality in that?

    If I carry a newborn on my body, I don't have the right to destroy it because it is in contact with my body. If the newborn wants something to eat, I don't have the right to kill it because I don't want to feed it or because it is an inconvenience to me.
    Mansplaining how a woman feels is pretty much how we men get. into trouble in the first place about these matters. This is a unique arrangement that women have weighed in on and under rape and incestual situations find it repulsive because the pregnancy is a constant reminder of a traumatic time.


    Please verify your assertion.
    I challenge you to prove an unborn human embryo is not a human being.
    I challenge you to prove a human slave is not a human being.
    I challenge you to prove the human worth of these two groups is not devalued/dehumanized.
    I agree the human embryo is human - the distinction is used to determine the period within which abortion is legal.
    I agree human slaves are human - weird question.
    The former purpose is to provide a moral boundary for an immoral act.

    My comparisons are not inaccurate. You throw out these blanket assertions. A slave is a human being. A human embryo is a human being. They are both devalued human beings. Their human worth is diminished by other human beings. I'm not projecting emotions. I'm stating facts.
    The only fact is that they are examples of how people commit immoral acts by making it easier to do so. The moral decision against them has already been made (slaves are useful, abortion is necessary) and the rest of it is to make it easier to implement that decision.

    Since you already agree that abortions should be allowed under some circumstances, you should also agree that there should be further distinctions.

    Look at the abortion rates in the early 1960's, before the peace movement and free sex/sexual revolution.
    ..
    Abortion skyrocketed with legalization.
    ...

    More women kill their unborns, per thousand in these civilized countries than anywhere else in the world. These are the countries with modern 'safe' abortion clinics.
    And the world has responded with better education and contraception. Would you not agree that an avoided abortion is better than no abortions?

    Your statement, enlarge, is a generalization. Some Christian liken some homosexuals as pedophiles, and some are pedophiles.
    This is no different to heterosexuals being pedophiles! This sneaky language you are using ignores that women prey on children too and men prey on young girls.

    Religions tend to focus only on one sexual orientation. In fact, it’s a little odd there are direct rules regarding homosexuality but not much on pedophilia.

    Anyway, you get the point. Christians most certainly dehumanize homosexuals.

    As for marriage, a Christian believes God ordained marriage between a man and woman. What I find fascinating is that the liberal leftist will, on the one hand, preach tolerance and open-mindedness, then be intolerant to the Christian having a view that opposes their own.
    Not true. All liberals are fine with Christians not practicing homosexuality - it is there personal religion. The problem happens when Christians apply their religion onto others that do not share their faith. Please be accurate as to who is in the moral wrong in this situation.

    Why is your value system better? I would be glad to look at morality from your perspective to see how you arrive at better. If there is no ultimate standard, what makes any standard 'better' than any other?
    It’s better because it takes practicality and education into account. It’s certainly better since I can learn and adjust accordingly.

    You appear to think that God requires human love to only be recognized between opposite genders. Facts tell a different story yet you follow your religious precepts before facts.
    Your general black and white moral attitudes is why religious morality tends to fail when rubber hits the road with changes with our understanding of the world. Only YEC Christians believe that the earth is only 5000 years old! Only Catholic Christians believe contraceptions is wrong!
    So yes, my moral system is better than yours based on facts alone.

    Yes, it is. I am aware of how same-sex couples are dehumanized and persecuted to the point of death in some Middle-eastern counties and Russia (for starters), and I believe it is wrong. As I have been arguing all along, human beings have intrinsic value, and once one group is devalued, it opens the door for others.

    I also believe that some things are wrong, but that does not give me an excuse to treat a human being as a lesser being. I can argue the point as to why I believe this, however.
    It’s not just killing that is happening. In this very thread you invoke your religion to deny the legitimacy of a same sex marriage. Even under the situation where the couple may not even be Christians! I’m not even talking about a religious wedding but a secular one. Yet you still deny it.

    Your own words are as hateful as the actions of others. And that hatred is a slippery slope to the persecution and discrimination that is practiced among Christians to this day. So don’t separate yourself from your other religious brethren.

    You are literally dehumanizing a homosexual love and commitment in this very thread! And for no factual reason but your own personal religion. As I said, you are not “pro life”, you are pro birth. The lives you purportedly pro of have to follow your Christian religion in order to be fully accepted. Do you understand how wrong that is?


    I already expressed in which case I see it justified - when the mother's life is threatened and the unborn cannot be saved.
    Good. This is important. So given that we know this, do you believe killing an embryo is the morally equivalent to killing an viable baby?

    [/Quote]
    Or those who have sex could take the necessary precautions. I'm for contraception as long as it does not kill the unborn but is used to prevent pregnacy in the first place.
    [/Quote]
    Do you believe that plan-B, which ensures a fertilized egg will not attach to the womb, is a reasonable measure to prevent pregnancy?

    I don't like to advertise what I do, but I sponsor some less fortunate and have for decades. I still do, but I have limited resources since retirement.
    That’s not sufficient. Everyone donates to charities. Do you take your own personal time to reach out to those communities or young single mothers and help them?

    Your example is not the point; the point is whether killing innocent human beings is wrong, not what I do. That is what the argument is about. You are attaching the man, not the argument.
    I am attacking the label you give yourself - pro life means the entire life, not just the act of birth. You are really just pro-birth as are probably all other pro-lifers. You don’t really care much for the babies that we have and you certainly only recognize only certain kinds of love. You don’t even distinguish between stages of a baby so according to what you have said thus far, you’re fine with aborting a viable baby even though it could have been done earlier.

    Your hypocrisy is terrifying because you don’t see the horrors of your own words and actions.


    Not true. I am aware that God instructs me to love my neighbor as myself. He is a God of the LIVING, not the dead. He cares how I interact with others. He cares about life and justice. I care about life and justice.
    He is also a god of the dead, unless heaven is a lie. And your view of life and justice only recognizes life long commitments of only sexualities approved by your religion. Clearly loving your neighbor as yourself has some serious qualifications.

    I don’t want to turn this into defending homosexuality. I only do this to point out the failings of your moral framework.



    As long as it does not take an already living human beings life, I'm for it. If there is a chance it takes a life, I'm against it.
    Is a fertilized egg a human life?

    How is one's environment connected to who one is? Does going from the kitchen to the living room change who you are?
    You tell me? If a baby has been determined to be unviable due to severe deformities would you abort as soon as possible or do you not have issues with waiting it was born and then killing it?

    Coat hangers should not be an alternative. Because the life of the unborn human being has been so devalued taking the life is not always seen for what it is - murder.
    Well, given that you support abortion in some cases, what do you think is a viable alternative in those cases?

    Concerning your statement about brain function and the frontal cortex, anyone who is interested can read the 14 myths and facts in the following:
    ...
    You have to answer some of these questions yourself since under the conditions where you support abortion. Once you have done so, let’s compare notes.
    Last edited by SharmaK; February 14th, 2018 at 07:44 AM.

  11. #210
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jun 2017
    Location
    Ontario, Canada
    Posts
    182
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Another abortion debate opportunity.

    Quote Originally Posted by PGA2
    My comparisons are not inaccurate. You throw out these blanket assertions. A slave is a human being. A human embryo is a human being. They are both devalued human beings. Their human worth is diminished by other human beings. I'm not projecting emotions. I'm stating facts.
    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK
    The only fact is that they are examples of how people commit immoral acts by making it easier to do so. The moral decision against them has already been made (slaves are useful, abortion is necessary) and the rest of it is to make it easier to implement that decision.
    Sharma, I documented the factual similarities of dehumanizing of Jews during the Hiltler regime with that of the Planned Parenthood and abortion advocates in Posts 57 and 70 on the following thread:

    http://www.onlinedebate.net/forums/s...n-debate/page3
    http://www.onlinedebate.net/forums/s...n-debate/page4

    Peter

  12. #211
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    2,087
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Another abortion debate opportunity.

    Quote Originally Posted by PGA2 View Post
    Sharma, I documented the factual similarities of dehumanizing of Jews during the Hiltler regime with that of the Planned Parenthood and abortion advocates in Posts 57 and 70 on the following thread:

    http://www.onlinedebate.net/forums/s...n-debate/page3
    http://www.onlinedebate.net/forums/s...n-debate/page4

    Peter
    OK. So why do you dehumanize human love and commitments?

  13. #212
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jun 2017
    Location
    Ontario, Canada
    Posts
    182
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Another abortion debate opportunity.

    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    OK. So why do you dehumanize human love and commitments?
    I'm not demonizing or dehumanizing love.

    You do the same thing you accuse me of doing. Some forms of 'love' you see as wrong.

    What is love, anyway. Give a definition.

    Here is the defintion I see as valid:

    1 Corinthians 13:4-7 (NASB)
    4 Love is patient, love is kind and is not jealous; love does not brag and is not arrogant, 5 does not act unbecomingly; it does not seek its own, is not provoked, does not take into account a wrong suffered, 6 does not rejoice in unrighteousness, but rejoices with the truth; 7 bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things.


    Love does not rejoice in unrighteousness.

    Peter

    ---------- Post added at 01:45 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:33 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    OK. So why do you dehumanize human love and commitments?
    What is more, you confuse eros or sexuality with love.

    Some commitments are wrong. By stating something is wrong does not mean I demonize or dehumanize the person. I demonize the ACT. Since we as humans are all created in God's image and likeness it is my duty and obligation to respect and look out for the best interests of my fellow human beings. That does not mean I must look after every person that is in need. I don't have the resources to do that. When it is in my scope I can make a difference with those I come in contact with, but I'm human. I fail like every other human being does to live according to how I should. But I am willing to forgive others as I have been forgiven. But why would I compromise expressing what is true and buy into a lie? Killing the unborn human being is evil. I care enough to stand against this practice/ACT in some small way by shining light into the situation.

    Peter

  14. #213
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    2,087
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Another abortion debate opportunity.

    Are you going to ignore all my other points? We can take the discussions about H somewhere else. Here we should focus on why *you* are fine with killing human beings and how your arguments about dehumanizing people apply to yourself too.

  15. #214
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    8,472
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Another abortion debate opportunity.

    Quote Originally Posted by LADY
    In your eyes and my eyes, it is a conceived baby. Until science makes that distinction for lawmakers, we'll be at a stalemate to convince others.
    I Don't think so. I point again to the wild success rate of ultrasounds at changing minds. There is no political argument for anything that changes 90% of the people opposed to it.
    And this not from people not effected, but from the mother.

    So I think science has, or rather the scientific evidence. That the 10% who refuse to change or the vast majority of the public opposed to it remain ignorant, is really not an indigtment on
    the arguments and evidence for it.

    Quote Originally Posted by LADY
    No, the difference is that under 21 weeks, the embryo/fetus/etc is dependent SOLELY on the woman's body. If you take it out of her body, it cannot survive. The same cannot be said about a newborn or a leachy relative. That is why the claim is that the woman alone should have the choice. It affects her body only.
    But that only identifies WHO is being leached from. It is not at all impossible to tell that the single father is the SOLE provider for a newborn (who's mother has died for argument sake).
    Point is, is that if dependency dictates this choice, then we can argue for that same choice over a newborn, because dependency hasn't substantially changed.

    Quote Originally Posted by LADY
    Here is the difference: If you take the newborn away from the mother and place it with someone else, with nourishment and shelter the newborn will survive. If you take an embryo/fetus/etc (under 21 weeks) out of a mother's womb and place it with someone, with nourishment and shelter, the embryo/fetus/etc will die. Even if you were to transplant the embryo/fetus/etc into another womb, it will still die.
    Well that last part is speculation. And I think there are efforts to create an artificial womb to push the survival rate far past the current threshold.
    Suppose tomorrow they get a breakthrough and now can furtalize an egg and grow a full on human star wars clone style. Does your argument then fail?
    Or is your argument that because the woman is the provider she gets to make the life and death decision, and as she is the only provider she is the only one that gets a say in her case.
    Because I'm just applying the latter to a newborn, as it is totally consistent with your argument.
    To serve man.

  16. #215
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Posts
    513
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Another abortion debate opportunity.

    Quote Originally Posted by ladykrimson View Post
    Here is the difference: If you take the newborn away from the mother and place it with someone else, with nourishment and shelter the newborn will survive. If you take an embryo/fetus/etc (under 21 weeks) out of a mother's womb and place it with someone, with nourishment and shelter, the embryo/fetus/etc will die. Even if you were to transplant the embryo/fetus/etc into another womb, it will still die.
    How come when anyone else kills the "unborn", it's murder. When the "mother" has it killed, it's called "choice"???

  17. #216
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jun 2017
    Location
    Ontario, Canada
    Posts
    182
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Another abortion debate opportunity.

    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    Are you going to ignore all my other points? We can take the discussions about H somewhere else. Here we should focus on why *you* are fine with killing human beings and how your arguments about dehumanizing people apply to yourself too.
    Not at all. I'm just taking a wee break.

  18. #217
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    2,087
    Post Thanks / Like

    Another abortion debate opportunity.

    Quote Originally Posted by PGA2 View Post
    Not at all. I'm just taking a wee break.
    No worries. Thanks for the heads up. Hopefully, you can find some time to do some self-reflection.

    Some of what you have said is the literal dehumanization of people whose acts you demonize and makes you are a perfect example that only religion can make good people do bad things. For someone that is so pro-life, you don’t seem to be very understanding in how people choose to live their life.

    On the matter at hand, you should look at the reasons why people choose abortion; perhaps some stories will help you be more sympathetic than the statistics you keep trotting out. For someone that is so pro-life, you don’t seem to be understanding that life is full of difficult moral choices.

    Specifically on the point of your accusation that pro-choicers dehumanize human beings by making a distinction between embryos and babies, you must also examine your own stance on the matter when aborting under the conditions you agree with. You appear to be fine with aborting a baby when aborting the embryo is clearly the more moral choice. For someone that is so pro-life, it appears that suffering and quality of life is ignored.

    Your blindness to your own failings above as you trot out science and statistics to provide cover for some pretty horrific ideas really need some correcting. I wish you luck in being able to do so and look forward to your return.


    Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro
    Last edited by SharmaK; February 15th, 2018 at 04:45 AM.

  19. #218
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    8,472
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Another abortion debate opportunity.

    Quote Originally Posted by SHARMAK
    No worries. Thanks for the heads up. Hopefully, you can find some time to do some self-reflection.

    Some of what you have said is the literal dehumanization of people whose acts you demonize and makes you are a perfect example that only religion can make good people do bad things. For someone that is so pro-life, you don’t seem to be very understanding in how people choose to live their life. ProTip: stop focusing on the gay porn aspect of homosexuality and watch some gay wedding videos.

    On the matter at hand, you should look at the reasons why people choose abortion; perhaps some stories will help you be more sympathetic than the statistics you keep trotting out. For someone that is so pro-life, you don’t seem to be understanding that life is full of difficult moral choices.

    Specifically on the point of your accusation that pro-choicers dehumanize human beings by making a distinction between embryos and babies, you must also examine your own stance on the matter when aborting under the conditions you agree with. You appear to be fine with aborting a baby when aborting the embryo is clearly the more moral choice. For someone that is so pro-life, it appears that suffering and quality of life is ignored.

    Your blindness to your own failings above as you trot out science and statistics to provide cover for some pretty horrific ideas really need some correcting. I wish you luck in being able to do so and look forward to your return.
    The ultimate appeal to emotion argument. Decrying facts and statistics for personal stories of joy.
    Unfortunately emotions don't define truth, and if having an abortion gave woman massive orgasms and piles of money. The arguments that the unborn are a person that deserves equal protection under the law is not insensitive and the antithesis of "dehumanizing" anyone.
    The fact that no one is said to be less of a human except by those on the pro-abortion side, and your use of the term to describe the pro-life side... is a clear result of the fallacious emotional appeal.
    Maybe you should reflect on what a logical fallacy is and why an appeal to emotion is fallacious.
    To serve man.

  20. Likes PGA2 liked this post
  21. #219
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    2,087
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Another abortion debate opportunity.

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    The ultimate appeal to emotion argument. Decrying facts and statistics for personal stories of joy.
    Unfortunately emotions don't define truth, and if having an abortion gave woman massive orgasms and piles of money. The arguments that the unborn are a person that deserves equal protection under the law is not insensitive and the antithesis of "dehumanizing" anyone.
    The fact that no one is said to be less of a human except by those on the pro-abortion side, and your use of the term to describe the pro-life side... is a clear result of the fallacious emotional appeal.
    Maybe you should reflect on what a logical fallacy is and why an appeal to emotion is fallacious.
    Ironically, emotions are one of things that distinguishes humans from animals. In the case of morality, sometimes emotions do have a say, particularly in situations that *are* highly emotional and personal.

    That said, little of what I pointed out were emotional:

    1. He factually decried H marriage and focuses literally on the most tiny aspect of being H. He used the word demonize to describe his emotions on the matter. In doing so he is hypocritically dehumanizing people himself.
    2. He factually claimed that PC dehumanize babies whereas he chooses the wrong moral path for the instances where he does support abortion.
    3. He has shown himself to be more pro-birth rather than pro-life by his own factual actions.

    So I don’t know what your point is. Maybe instead of defending someone who has been exposed as a hypocrite you might want to respond to my last post with you. I can already see you are falling into the same moral traps of your own making so I’d understand why you wouldn’t.

  22. #220
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jun 2017
    Location
    Ontario, Canada
    Posts
    182
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Another abortion debate opportunity.

    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    No worries. Thanks for the heads up. Hopefully, you can find some time to do some self-reflection.

    Some of what you have said is the literal dehumanization of people whose acts you demonize and makes you are a perfect example that only religion can make good people do bad things. For someone that is so pro-life, you don’t seem to be very understanding in how people choose to live their life.
    I'm expressing what I hold to be right and wrong and trying to justify why I believe the way I do. I'm not going out and killing others because of the belief they or I hold. I'm not demonizing the person because they are a human being but identifying an action that I see is wrong, then showing the justification for my belief. The command is to love others. Love speaks truth even when it is not politically correct to do so. I am not acting hatefully towards homosexuals. The Christian is instructed to give to those in need, regardless of their beliefs. If I see someone in need and I can give them a meal or shelter I'm not to discriminate because of their belief system.

    A family member needed a place to stay, even though they had wronged us in the past. They had nowhere else to go. They still live with us, until they can branch out on their own once again, even though their values conflict with ours. I have been quite on interjecting my thoughts because I know they oppose them. I'm not forcing my views on them.

    On a debate forum it is a different case. The forum is here to debate/showcase belief systems.

    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    On the matter at hand, you should look at the reasons why people choose abortion; perhaps some stories will help you be more sympathetic than the statistics you keep trotting out. For someone that is so pro-life, you don’t seem to be understanding that life is full of difficult moral choices.

    Specifically on the point of your accusation that pro-choicers dehumanize human beings by making a distinction between embryos and babies, you must also examine your own stance on the matter when aborting under the conditions you agree with. You appear to be fine with aborting a baby when aborting the embryo is clearly the more moral choice. For someone that is so pro-life, it appears that suffering and quality of life is ignored.
    WHAT? Where have I ever expressed being okay with aborting a baby? I have done what is called 'trotting out the toddler' to show the difference between the unborn and newborn or toddler is one of four different qualities - Size, Level of Development, Environment, Dependency. On the basis of those four common qualities I have shown there is no difference in what the being IS before or after birth and have tried to bring this point home by arguing that the standard you use to take a life before birth is the same one you use to preserve life after birth. You appear to be okay with killing an innocent human being because you don't value it as a human being.

    There is only one kind of abortion I agree with. That is when the mother's life is at risk and there is no way to save the unborn because of its viability. I would be the first to say that rape and incest is wrong, an evil. Does that justify taking the life of an innocent human being? Evil is always present in this world. Does one evil justify another? Should one evil be cause for another evil? What is the equivilant justice for taking an innocent life? Is it to encourage others to take other innocent live's because/if they CHOOSE to do so?

    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    Your blindness to your own failings above as you trot out science and statistics to provide cover for some pretty horrific ideas really need some correcting. I wish you luck in being able to do so and look forward to your return.
    I 'trot out' stats or scientific data to show why I believe what I do instead of just giving assertions. It shows that what is expressed is not just my OPINION. I am justifying what I believe and the reason why.

    I was thinking of the hypocrisy on your part as I read Post 209. I wanted to reflect on it before commenting. Your position is insensitive to what is going on regarding abortion. You recognize that the unborn is a human being, but that does not matter to you. You don't seem to care that innocent human beings are being butchered in the millions every year, mostly because of lifestyle choices. You seem to think that because they are in the early stages of development that it justifies killing them. You have turned the tables to villanize my position on this and other issues. It is the double-standard of the left all over again. Once the argument does not go your way you start ad homenum attacks based on the Christian faith. I see an ultimate authority as determining right and wrong. If you want to justify your position on a moral stand then either open a thread on morality and abortion or morality and relativism to discuss it.

    Last time I checked, I was still allowed to express my belief.

    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK
    In this very thread you invoke your religion to deny the legitimacy of a same-sex marriage. Even under the situation where the couple may not even be Christians! I’m not even talking about a religious wedding but a secular one. Yet you still deny it.

    Your own words are as hateful as the actions of others. And that hatred is a slippery slope to the persecution and discrimination that is practiced among Christians to this day. So don’t separate yourself from your other religious brethren.

    You are literally dehumanizing a homosexual love and commitment in this very thread! And for no factual reason but your own personal religion. As I said, you are not “pro life”, you are pro birth. The lives you purportedly pro of have to follow your Christian religion in order to be fully accepted. Do you understand how wrong that is?
    Sometimes I can't justify what I or others professing a belief in Jesus Christ do. If I believe something is wrong I can provide the reasons why.

    I don't go around killing other human beings because of their beliefs. I recognize some things are morally wrong. I have a justification for why I believe this. As I pointed out in my previous post, I am to love my neighbor. That does not mean I have to agree with everything my neighbor does as being morally right or justifiable. I see and look to a higher authority than you do. But I live in a country. I have to live by the law of the land and sometimes I fall short. Sometimes the law of the land opposes what I consider a higher standard. Sometimes they are unjust. My judgment on justice is filtered through a Christian lense. I do not see the homosexual as being a lesser human being. I do not see the mother who aborts her unborn as less of a human being. I just see some acts done by these two groups as wrong, just like I see some acts done by these people as right.

    There is a difference between being hateful and disagreeing on what is right and wrong. Do you understand that difference? Who determines right and wrong? As I said, I would be glad to discuss the merits of your atheistic beliefs as opposed to my Christian beliefs in regards to morality.

    You invoke your religious beliefs (atheism) too because you want to deny me my right to my belief. It is a worldview war. What you choose to do as a man in the privacy of your home it your business as long as it does not harm others, IMO. When you say that gay-marriage is right you bring into the discussion my belief on the subject, which is that God created both MAN and WOMAN for the purpose of marriage and pro-creation. He sanctified that union, not some other union. He speaks out against other ACTS of sexuality as immoral and displeasing to Him.

    My belief is that when I, or you, or someone else goes against His/God's revelation we do what is wrong. What you are doing here is objecting to my right to hold those beliefs on the grounds that they are wrong because they conflict with YOUR beliefs. Am I allowed, in your eyes, to hold any belief that is opposed to what you believe?

    Wrong is whose relative, subjective eyes and what makes particular actions wrong becomes the question in such disagreements? It becomes a question of justification. How do you justify what you believe? Do you justify it because you like or prefer these actions? Do you justify it because some other relative, subjective human being who is in power decides to make his preference law? Do you justify it because the greater culture has pushed for such standards until they are law? The squeeky wheel gets the oil.

    Even though I see your moral justification as inadequate if those are the standards you hold to I am all for your right to hold your beliefs except when you act on those beliefs to kill other innocent human beings. It is when those beliefs kill/murder others that I object to them and want to express why.

    I don't want to be censored so my belief is not allowed to be expressed, because some group controls my right to freedom of speech and wants to edit my thoughts (as witnessed on university campuses recently), so I recognize and respect you have the right to hold your opposing beliefs also. If you want to be wrong that is your option. (^8

    Peter

    ---------- Post added at 01:05 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:36 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    Ironically, emotions are one of things that distinguishes humans from animals. In the case of morality, sometimes emotions do have a say, particularly in situations that *are* highly emotional and personal.

    That said, little of what I pointed out were emotional:

    1. He factually decried H marriage and focuses literally on the most tiny aspect of being H. He used the word demonize to describe his emotions on the matter. In doing so he is hypocritically dehumanizing people himself.
    2. He factually claimed that PC dehumanize babies whereas he chooses the wrong moral path for the instances where he does support abortion.
    3. He has shown himself to be more pro-birth rather than pro-life by his own factual actions.

    So I don’t know what your point is. Maybe instead of defending someone who has been exposed as a hypocrite you might want to respond to my last post with you. I can already see you are falling into the same moral traps of your own making so I’d understand why you wouldn’t.
    Since you continue to attack the man I will respond again because you are making it personal.

    As if you are not being hypocritical. You apply the standard to others but fail to recognize it in yourself. That is the definition of hypocrisy. Your post(s) drips with hypocrisy.

    1. I pointed out that I believe it is wrong based on my belief system. It is 'right' based on your belief system. The problem is that both systems of thought cannot both be logically right. I invite you to justify your belief system. It is a moral issue.
    2. If both the unborn and newborn are human beings it is not me who is discriminating against the human being by dehumanizing it and supporting its killing on the preference of the female, but you and she.
    3. How do you ever come to this conclusion? Where have I not advocated for the life of all human beings, except in justifiably specific cases? Please give examples because I believe you may be taking what I said out of context or just plain changing what I believe (putting words in my mouth) to VILLANIZE me because I don't think the same way you do on these issues.

    BTW, you also brought up euthenasia.

    I have kept (from the start) trying to make you justify why killing a human being because it is on one side of the womb is justifiable in your eyes. So far you have given three reasons, 1) its environment, 2) its level of development, and 3) you just don't care about its well-being at early stages of its development.

    I have replied to all three of your responses.

    Peter

 

 
Page 11 of 12 FirstFirst ... 7 8 9 10 11 12 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Terms in the abortion debate
    By mican333 in forum General Debate
    Replies: 79
    Last Post: February 7th, 2018, 07:56 AM
  2. Is Equal Opportunity Possible?
    By UNC Reason in forum Politics
    Replies: 18
    Last Post: August 6th, 2012, 08:14 AM
  3. Missed terrorist opportunity?
    By FruitandNut in forum Current Events
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: September 13th, 2007, 03:52 PM
  4. Abortion: split from a 1 vs 1 debate
    By CC in forum Social Issues
    Replies: 16
    Last Post: April 26th, 2006, 04:37 PM
  5. Debate Mastery: Abortion
    By TheOriginal in forum General Debate
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: April 20th, 2004, 06:43 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •