|
Post by Elizabeth on Feb 20, 2019 5:49:59 GMT
I read a reply from one guy and he made a really good point. Of course, scientists are divided on whether a child in the womb is a human. I mean it's not a fish or a pig but alive and growing/aging in the womb as we all are outside the womb so I agree with the smart scientists who know this. Yes, even old people age because their hair changes color, they lose teeth, etc which is aging and aging is a change in growth as babies in the womb age because look different each month. But here's what the smart reply was...
"Consider this: scientists are looking everywhere outside the planet for absolutely anything that may even hint at life. Microbes. Bacteria and even dead evidence of life. And yet...a conceived fetus is considered to be but a few cells not worthy of being called life...how is that? Face it folks, we as humanity are in great need of help."
Your thoughts on this?
|
|
|
Post by DKTrav88 on Jun 20, 2019 4:50:40 GMT
Okay then I would argue that a fetus is a human life. I think it would be foolish to believe otherwise. In terms of being life, and having the genetic code of a human, it seems essentially by definition to argue that it is a human life. I think the controversial question is to argue of whether it has a right to be ascribed person-hood, and, if so, whether that right to be ascribed person-hood exceeds the right of its mother. Generally speaking, it is not very controversial to answer affirmatively for those fetuses nearing birth. I also claim it is reasonable to ascribe person-hood immediately, as whether or not this is the case has little bearing on the later question (whether or not you ascribe person-hood immediately, the question of when that right exceeds the right of the mother remains unchanged). Hence, we can further reduce to the central question of when that right of the fetus overpowers the right of the mother. Of course some claim it does instantly, others require that it takes a certain amount of time for that right to build in strength until it does. I don't really think the purpose of this thread is to get into an abortion debate, or perhaps it is. However, I would just contend that the answer to the original question is that there is a tendency to be lazy in language and just say "fetus != life" when the real view is more nuanced. I think it would be much better if these linguistic idioms were dropped, as they seem to invite trivial counter-attacks under uncharitable interpretations. The right to liberty does not give license to harm other human beings. The right to life trumps the right to liberty because without life there is no liberty. Also, parents have a duty and an obligation to take care of, support, and give themselves for their children.
|
|
|
Post by DKTrav88 on Jun 20, 2019 4:52:06 GMT
Yea, I’ve thought about this too. They’re so willing to accept the possibility of life on other planets in the form of micro bacteria, yet the same people will turn around and say a baby in the womb is not considered a life because blah blah blah it’s a double standard Made-Up Issue Needed to Establish a Theocracy If all human fetuses died, could anyone say that human life existed on Earth? What is the made up issue? I don't want to establish theocracy. What's the point of your hypothetical?
|
|
|
Post by thesageofmainstreet on Jun 20, 2019 19:33:05 GMT
The Pulpit Is for BulliesYou're not being consistent, which can be expected from a pushy mob that dishonestly tries to sell an unfinished product. If, as preached, the fetus is a "baby," then killing that baby through abortion is a far worse crime than letting the "mother" die, which is only negligent manslaughter. If you pretend you don't understand the difference, you only believe in your Pro-Life cult because it gives you a pathetic illusion of being connected to a Higher Power. You've reduced a moral question to one of legal definitions. I don't care about the severity of crimes as defined by the law; I care about the children that must go without their mother who may be their only caretaker who dies giving birth to their sibling. If they have no other family willing to take care of them then all of the children are going through the hell that is the foster care system and will not be raised by their mother and could end up in a horrible situation. Its It's a tough call to decide of whom decide who is of more importance to the world between the mother and baby when one of them is going to die. It varies by situation and I think that the choice in such a case should be made by the one whom it will effect affect who can make it and her family whether she has to live with the decision or else sacrifice her own life. To give absolute moral significance to the difference between legalistic terms as you did simplifies a very nuanced situation. As to being connected to a higher power, I very much am. My pro life views do not show me that I have a connection to God, God himself shows me that I have a connection to God. He actually speaks to his children. The pro life views I hold are just what any sane person who cares sane people who care about human life should believe whether they believe in God or not. Childish and Desperate Search for an Infallible Father-FigureInconsistency again (and that is a symptom of your mind-numbing grammar). You'd rather "kill a baby" than make it (notice the impersonal pronoun) live in deficient circumstances, which is exactly why unwanted pregnancies should be terminated, which your Puritanical cult opposes. Then you leave it up to the pregnant woman to choose whether she wants to continue the pregnancy, which makes you Pro-Choice. It's dishonest to weasel out of your hypocrisy by talking about "legalisms," when it's just common sense that First-Degree Murder is worse than Negligent Manslaughter, which is necessarily your own verdict if you still insist that abortion means killing. But you prove that you don't; like Liberal "social justice" warriors, you only seek the high of feeling morally superior to normal people.
|
|
|
Post by thesageofmainstreet on Jun 20, 2019 19:45:57 GMT
Made-Up Issue Needed to Establish a Theocracy If all human fetuses died, could anyone say that human life existed on Earth? What's the point of your hypothetical? Anyone Born With a Silver Spoon in His Mouth Will Always Speak With a Forked TongueThe point is that fetuses are not functioning living beings. Seeds are not plants; in fact you're as pushy, unrealistic, and obnoxious as the Catholic theocrats are about birth control. If a bridge is still under construction, it is not yet a bridge, but your greedy clergy would try to sell it as one. And it is really silly for the Right to be so touchy-feely about this situation, but typical if they can be considered as cry- bullies. They sadistically want to punish women and men for having a little harmless fun. It all indicates that the Left and Right chieftains come from the same Born to Rule class.
|
|
|
Post by DKTrav88 on Jun 21, 2019 0:57:00 GMT
What's the point of your hypothetical? Anyone Born With a Silver Spoon in His Mouth Will Always Speak With a Forked TongueThe point is that fetuses are not functioning living beings. Seeds are not plants; in fact you're as pushy, unrealistic, and obnoxious as the Catholic theocrats are about birth control. If a bridge is still under construction, it is not yet a bridge, but your greedy clergy would try to sell it as one. And it is really silly for the Right to be so touchy-feely about this situation, but typical if they can be considered as cry- bullies. They sadistically want to punish women and men for having a little harmless fun. It all indicates that the Left and Right chieftains come from the same Born to Rule class. I wasn’t born rich FYI(thank God and my parents I was born and not aborted), and I don’t care much for Catholics. It doesn’t matter if fetuses aren’t functioning human beings, they’re still human beings. Your analogies are quite poor as a seed is not a human being and a bridge is not a human being. Who are my clergy? Enlighten me, since you seem to know more about me than I do; a common theme on the internet. A fetus has every right to be considered a person just as your mother and father considered you a person when you were in your mother’s womb. Punish? Harmless fun? If you didn’t know, which I’m sure you aren’t that stupid, when you have sex there’s a very high chance of conception. People must be responsible for their actions, as “harmless” as it may seem. Sex is an act of procreation. I don’t identify with the political paradigm because they both have baggage that I want nothing to do with.
|
|
Clovis Merovingian
Prestige/VIP
Elder
Posts: 2,692
Likes: 1,757
Meta-Ethnicity: Anglo-American
Ethnicity: Deep Southerner
Country: My State and my Region are my country
Region: The Deep South
Location: South Carolina
Ancestry: Gaelic (patrilineal), English, Ulster Scots/Scots Irish, Scottish, German, Swiss German, Swedish, Manx, Finnish, Norman French/Quebecois (distantly), Dutch (distantly)
Taxonomy: Borreby/Alpine/ Nordid mix
Y-DNA: R-S660/R-DF109
mtDNA: T1a1
Politics: Conservative
Religion: Christian
Hero: Andrew Jackson, Thomas Jefferson, James K. Polk
Age: 30
Philosophy: I try to find out what is true as best I can.
|
Post by Clovis Merovingian on Jun 21, 2019 2:36:19 GMT
You've reduced a moral question to one of legal definitions. I don't care about the severity of crimes as defined by the law; I care about the children that must go without their mother who may be their only caretaker who dies giving birth to their sibling. If they have no other family willing to take care of them then all of the children are going through the hell that is the foster care system and will not be raised by their mother and could end up in a horrible situation. Its It's a tough call to decide of whom decide who is of more importance to the world between the mother and baby when one of them is going to die. It varies by situation and I think that the choice in such a case should be made by the one whom it will effect affect who can make it and her family whether she has to live with the decision or else sacrifice her own life. To give absolute moral significance to the difference between legalistic terms as you did simplifies a very nuanced situation. As to being connected to a higher power, I very much am. My pro life views do not show me that I have a connection to God, God himself shows me that I have a connection to God. He actually speaks to his children. The pro life views I hold are just what any sane person who cares sane people who care about human life should believe whether they believe in God or not. Childish and Desperate Search for an Infallible Father-FigureInconsistency again (and that is a symptom of your mind-numbing grammar). You'd rather "kill a baby" than make it (notice the impersonal pronoun) live in deficient circumstances, which is exactly why unwanted pregnancies should be terminated, which your Puritanical cult opposes. Then you leave it up to the pregnant woman to choose whether she wants to continue the pregnancy, which makes you Pro-Choice. It's dishonest to weasel out of your hypocrisy by talking about "legalisms," when it's just common sense that First-Degree Murder is worse than Negligent Manslaughter, which is necessarily your own verdict if you still insist that abortion means killing. But you prove that you don't; like Liberal "social justice" warriors, you only seek the high of feeling morally superior to normal people. My position on this is simple. In a situation where the mother is going to die giving birth to a child or else survive by aborting said child, one person is going to die either way. Both lives, the life of the mother and the life of the child are of equal value at the base level. So the question becomes who's death will cause more pain and suffering to more people? Who is more beneficial to the world as a whole alive rather than dead? Should a mother leave her children behind for the sake of her unborn child? These are very tough and very complex questions that cannot be decided by an impersonal party. It should be decided by those who it will affect, the family at large. The mother will have a very tough choice she will have to make, either to sacrifice her life for the sake of her unborn child or live with her decision to kill it and sacrifice its life for the sake of her family. Either way a human being will die. This is far more complex situation than "first degree murder" vs. "negligent manslaughter" legal terms that describe crimes against our government and not conscience or morality. If someone kills someone else to save their self from certain death and and to save their family from tragedy, I wouldn't call that murder much less "first degree murder" (defined by the way as an unlawful killing that is both willful and premeditated. Notice that this is simply a legal term?) In a sense you would be correct in me being pro choice in ONLY this instance and very uneasily pro choice at that. As stated in the first post you quoted, I only believe in abortion in two cases, the ones I've described. As for your claim that i'd rather kill a baby than subject it to deficient situations, that is false. I don't believe that murdering an unborn child to save it from a poor single mother or foster care is correct in any situation except the one we are arguing about where its a sure thing that either the unborn baby or the mother will die because a choice has to be made between two lives equal in value, and the question of what will happen to those under the mother's care necessarily comes up when deciding who lives or who dies. If you are forced to choose between the lives of two innocent people, to decide which one lives and which one dies, does the fact that one has a family, children, and a spouse to take care of while the other one does not influence your decision of who to kill and who to let live at all? You are a white supremacist classist that sees many people as subhuman so maybe your moral compass is screwed beyond repair but most normal people would answer the question with a yes. Also, you resemble the SJW's far more than I do. You agree with them on matters of class and mirror them exactly on matters of race, in the latter case only disagreeing with them as to who should have the whip hand in society.
|
|
|
Post by thesageofmainstreet on Jun 21, 2019 17:36:35 GMT
Anyone Born With a Silver Spoon in His Mouth Will Always Speak With a Forked TongueThe point is that fetuses are not functioning living beings. Seeds are not plants; in fact you're as pushy, unrealistic, and obnoxious as the Catholic theocrats are about birth control. If a bridge is still under construction, it is not yet a bridge, but your greedy clergy would try to sell it as one. And it is really silly for the Right to be so touchy-feely about this situation, but typical if they can be considered as cry- bullies. They sadistically want to punish women and men for having a little harmless fun. It all indicates that the Left and Right chieftains come from the same Born to Rule class. I wasn’t born rich FYI(thank God and my parents I was born and not aborted), and I don’t care much for Catholics. It doesn’t matter if fetuses aren’t functioning human beings, they’re still human beings. Your analogies are quite poor as a seed is not a human being and a bridge is not a human being. Who are my clergy? Enlighten me, since you seem to know more about me than I do; a common theme on the internet. A fetus has every right to be considered a person just as your mother and father considered you a person when you were in your mother’s womb. Punish? Harmless fun? If you didn’t know, which I’m sure you aren’t that stupid, when you have sex there’s a very high chance of conception. People must be responsible for their actions, as “harmless” as it may seem. Sex is an act of procreation. I don’t identify with the political paradigm because they both have baggage that I want nothing to do with. Spittling Sermons From the Sexually Maladjusted The ruling class has always been able to get a quick and safe abortion, even when that was totally illegal. Their Right Wing's purpose with this fake morality is to produce unwanted marriages and unwanted children among the classes they rule. The weaker we are because of that, the stronger they are. Making us miserable increases their power. They also increase their illegitimate and self-declared power over us by making us illogical, as you display with your inanity about "legalisms" and refusal to admit that an incomplete pregnancy can't be treated like a finished one. If God wanted us to submit to the consequences Nature imposes on us, instead of trying to thwart Nature's harmful side-effects, then He would have never allowed any medicines or other defenses against natural disasters. He would have never given us any creative geniuses, because the sole purpose of superior intelligence is to get rid of undesirable natural consequences. Unwanted pregnancies go under the list of things that Man must use his God-given intelligence against. So the Puritanical preachers, as paid agents of the guillotine-fodder hereditary oligarchy, sadistically want to humiliate us and put us in our place by aggressively forbidding taking any action to improve Nature's inferior providence. Real men don't let any of those pushy creeps shout us down. Anyone who tells them how to handle their sex lives needs to get punched in the mouth. I'm sick of all this bossy crap, because I'm a man and those Inquisitionists are psychotic bullies. Why would God give us such a strong sex drive if that act was only for reproductive purposes? Religious fanatics revel in the pain of sexually healthy people, which cold-hearted attitude is an indication that they themselves are sexually frigid. They love a cruel God and probably gloat at other natural disasters as deserved punishment for those who didn't slavishly obey all the dogmas they made up to make themselves feel omnipotent.
|
|
|
Post by archlogician on Jun 22, 2019 0:10:09 GMT
Childish and Desperate Search for an Infallible Father-FigureInconsistency again (and that is a symptom of your mind-numbing grammar). You'd rather "kill a baby" than make it (notice the impersonal pronoun) live in deficient circumstances, which is exactly why unwanted pregnancies should be terminated, which your Puritanical cult opposes. Then you leave it up to the pregnant woman to choose whether she wants to continue the pregnancy, which makes you Pro-Choice. It's dishonest to weasel out of your hypocrisy by talking about "legalisms," when it's just common sense that First-Degree Murder is worse than Negligent Manslaughter, which is necessarily your own verdict if you still insist that abortion means killing. But you prove that you don't; like Liberal "social justice" warriors, you only seek the high of feeling morally superior to normal people. My position on this is simple. In a situation where the mother is going to die giving birth to a child or else survive by aborting said child, one person is going to die either way. Both lives, the life of the mother and the life of the child are of equal value at the base level. So the question becomes who's death will cause more pain and suffering to more people? Who is more beneficial to the world as a whole alive rather than dead? Should a mother leave her children behind for the sake of her unborn child? These are very tough and very complex questions that cannot be decided by an impersonal party. It should be decided by those who it will affect, the family at large. The mother will have a very tough choice she will have to make, either to sacrifice her life for the sake of her unborn child or live with her decision to kill it and sacrifice its life for the sake of her family. Either way a human being will die. This is far more complex situation than "first degree murder" vs. "negligent manslaughter" legal terms that describe crimes against our government and not conscience or morality. If someone kills someone else to save their self from certain death and and to save their family from tragedy, I wouldn't call that murder much less "first degree murder" (defined by the way as an unlawful killing that is both willful and premeditated. Notice that this is simply a legal term?) In a sense you would be correct in me being pro choice in ONLY this instance and very uneasily pro choice at that. As stated in the first post you quoted, I only believe in abortion in two cases, the ones I've described. As for your claim that i'd rather kill a baby than subject it to deficient situations, that is false. I don't believe that murdering an unborn child to save it from a poor single mother or foster care is correct in any situation except the one we are arguing about where its a sure thing that either the unborn baby or the mother will die because a choice has to be made between two lives equal in value, and the question of what will happen to those under the mother's care necessarily comes up when deciding who lives or who dies. If you are forced to choose between the lives of two innocent people, to decide which one lives and which one dies, does the fact that one has a family, children, and a spouse to take care of while the other one does not influence your decision of who to kill and who to let live at all? You are a white supremacist classist that sees many people as subhuman so maybe your moral compass is screwed beyond repair but most normal people would answer the question with a yes. Also, you resemble the SJW's far more than I do. You agree with them on matters of class and mirror them exactly on matters of race, in the latter case only disagreeing with them as to who should have the whip hand in society. Regarding the last two paragraphs, this is a clear argument ad hominem. It is particularly unwarranted, as much of the earlier argumentation by thesageofmainstreet appears to be contesting the oppressive authoritarian consequences of the extreme anti-abortion perspective, which stands in stark opposition to what you are accusing.
|
|
Clovis Merovingian
Prestige/VIP
Elder
Posts: 2,692
Likes: 1,757
Meta-Ethnicity: Anglo-American
Ethnicity: Deep Southerner
Country: My State and my Region are my country
Region: The Deep South
Location: South Carolina
Ancestry: Gaelic (patrilineal), English, Ulster Scots/Scots Irish, Scottish, German, Swiss German, Swedish, Manx, Finnish, Norman French/Quebecois (distantly), Dutch (distantly)
Taxonomy: Borreby/Alpine/ Nordid mix
Y-DNA: R-S660/R-DF109
mtDNA: T1a1
Politics: Conservative
Religion: Christian
Hero: Andrew Jackson, Thomas Jefferson, James K. Polk
Age: 30
Philosophy: I try to find out what is true as best I can.
|
Post by Clovis Merovingian on Jun 22, 2019 1:27:24 GMT
My position on this is simple. In a situation where the mother is going to die giving birth to a child or else survive by aborting said child, one person is going to die either way. Both lives, the life of the mother and the life of the child are of equal value at the base level. So the question becomes who's death will cause more pain and suffering to more people? Who is more beneficial to the world as a whole alive rather than dead? Should a mother leave her children behind for the sake of her unborn child? These are very tough and very complex questions that cannot be decided by an impersonal party. It should be decided by those who it will affect, the family at large. The mother will have a very tough choice she will have to make, either to sacrifice her life for the sake of her unborn child or live with her decision to kill it and sacrifice its life for the sake of her family. Either way a human being will die. This is far more complex situation than "first degree murder" vs. "negligent manslaughter" legal terms that describe crimes against our government and not conscience or morality. If someone kills someone else to save their self from certain death and and to save their family from tragedy, I wouldn't call that murder much less "first degree murder" (defined by the way as an unlawful killing that is both willful and premeditated. Notice that this is simply a legal term?) In a sense you would be correct in me being pro choice in ONLY this instance and very uneasily pro choice at that. As stated in the first post you quoted, I only believe in abortion in two cases, the ones I've described. As for your claim that i'd rather kill a baby than subject it to deficient situations, that is false. I don't believe that murdering an unborn child to save it from a poor single mother or foster care is correct in any situation except the one we are arguing about where its a sure thing that either the unborn baby or the mother will die because a choice has to be made between two lives equal in value, and the question of what will happen to those under the mother's care necessarily comes up when deciding who lives or who dies. If you are forced to choose between the lives of two innocent people, to decide which one lives and which one dies, does the fact that one has a family, children, and a spouse to take care of while the other one does not influence your decision of who to kill and who to let live at all? You are a white supremacist classist that sees many people as subhuman so maybe your moral compass is screwed beyond repair but most normal people would answer the question with a yes. Also, you resemble the SJW's far more than I do. You agree with them on matters of class and mirror them exactly on matters of race, in the latter case only disagreeing with them as to who should have the whip hand in society. Regarding the last two paragraphs, this is a clear argument ad hominem. It is particularly unwarranted, as much of the earlier argumentation by thesageofmainstreet appears to be contesting the oppressive authoritarian consequences of the extreme anti-abortion perspective, which stands in stark opposition to what you are accusing. No, it is not unwarranted. You need to read what the thesageofmainstreet posts regularly on this site in other topics. One of his statements read "this country was founded on two things 1. that being rich doesn't make you better than anyone else 2. that being white does." He regularly rails about starting a violent revolution against the upper classes, how the third world and third worlders are human garbage, and how white people are superior to everyone else. He is an open white supremacist, he openly wants to kill the rich. He combines the worst qualities of both the right and the left wing, racial supremacy and pathetic class envy. The next time you comment on something and interject yourself into a conversation, stop being lazy and actually research why things are being said. I only mentioned his idiotic political beliefs because 1. someone with his proclivities regards many people as subhuman and thus he may not have a normal human being's moral compass for which he judges right and wrong by making my example seem alien to him. 2. he accused me of being like an SJW when he has the same retarded race and class obsession they do. Alt Righters are just the SJW's mirror image.
|
|
|
Post by thesageofmainstreet on Jun 22, 2019 19:10:41 GMT
My position on this is simple. In a situation where the mother is going to die giving birth to a child or else survive by aborting said child, one person is going to die either way. Both lives, the life of the mother and the life of the child are of equal value at the base level. So the question becomes who's death will cause more pain and suffering to more people? Who is more beneficial to the world as a whole alive rather than dead? Should a mother leave her children behind for the sake of her unborn child? These are very tough and very complex questions that cannot be decided by an impersonal party. It should be decided by those who it will affect, the family at large. The mother will have a very tough choice she will have to make, either to sacrifice her life for the sake of her unborn child or live with her decision to kill it and sacrifice its life for the sake of her family. Either way a human being will die. This is far more complex situation than "first degree murder" vs. "negligent manslaughter" legal terms that describe crimes against our government and not conscience or morality. If someone kills someone else to save their self from certain death and and to save their family from tragedy, I wouldn't call that murder much less "first degree murder" (defined by the way as an unlawful killing that is both willful and premeditated. Notice that this is simply a legal term?) In a sense you would be correct in me being pro choice in ONLY this instance and very uneasily pro choice at that. As stated in the first post you quoted, I only believe in abortion in two cases, the ones I've described. As for your claim that i'd rather kill a baby than subject it to deficient situations, that is false. I don't believe that murdering an unborn child to save it from a poor single mother or foster care is correct in any situation except the one we are arguing about where its a sure thing that either the unborn baby or the mother will die because a choice has to be made between two lives equal in value, and the question of what will happen to those under the mother's care necessarily comes up when deciding who lives or who dies. If you are forced to choose between the lives of two innocent people, to decide which one lives and which one dies, does the fact that one has a family, children, and a spouse to take care of while the other one does not influence your decision of who to kill and who to let live at all? You are a white supremacist classist that sees many people as subhuman so maybe your moral compass is screwed beyond repair but most normal people would answer the question with a yes. Also, you resemble the SJW's far more than I do. You agree with them on matters of class and mirror them exactly on matters of race, in the latter case only disagreeing with them as to who should have the whip hand in society. Regarding the last two paragraphs, this is a clear argument ad hominem. It is particularly unwarranted, as much of the earlier argumentation by thesageofmainstreet appears to be contesting the oppressive authoritarian consequences of the extreme anti-abortion perspective, which stands in stark opposition to what you are accusing. Even "Critical Thinking" Is Only What Some Self-Appointed Authority Claims It IsIt is not an extremist version of the Pro-Life dogma; it is a logically consistent one. So the non-extreme version is hypocritical nonsense and feel-good mumbo jumbo. No law demands harsher penalties for negligence than for intention, which is necessary for the charge of First Degree Murder. Anti-abortionists are trying to weasel out of the horrible consequences of their fantasy about fetuses. Also, of course, they contradict themselves and nullify their whole doctrine even more when they exempt rape and incest in order to avoid massive unpopularity.
|
|