Page 11 of 25 FirstFirst ... 91011121321 ... LastLast
Results 101 to 110 of 250
  1. #101  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Woodland Park, Colorado, United States
    Posts
    8,565
    Quote Originally Posted by wilbur View Post
    And the point you and others gloss over is what makes the difference. Baal worshippers tortuously killed human babies. In 99% of abortions, there is no child.

    Why must you (and others) here continually use tactics you to minimize the attention on the actual suffering and hardship that many people must face if they find themselves in a circumstance where abortion seems like the only solution? It's dishonest. The suffering or life-crushing poverty that many of us may not even be able to conceive of, are reduced to words like 'convenience' or 'monetary gain' or 'selfishness'. This is why 'pro-life' is such an ironic moniker. Real human beings get dehumanized, and ones that do not exist yet get more love and compassion.
    You just confirmed my point. Now on to your other point, here is a solution that always works and avoids the abortion question entirely,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, ,,,,,,,,,,

















    CLOSE YOUR LEGS OR DEAL WITH THE RESPONSIBILITY OF A CHILD!;)
    Education without values, as useful as it is, seems rather to make man a more clever devil.
    C. S. Lewis
    Do not ever say that the desire to "do good" by force is a good motive. Neither power-lust nor stupidity are good motives. (Are you listening Barry)?:mad:
    Ayn Rand
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2. #102  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    755
    Quote Originally Posted by AmPat View Post
    You just confirmed my point. Now on to your other point, here is a solution that always works and avoids the abortion question entirely,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, ,,,,,,,,,,

    CLOSE YOUR LEGS OR DEAL WITH THE RESPONSIBILITY OF A CHILD!;)
    Shouldn't be just the woman's responsibilty, yes she bears the child but the man has half the ingredients needed. ;) Maybe more laws forcing male responsibility in the pregnancy could work in some way.

    You made the decision, deal with the consequences.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  3. #103  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Woodland Park, Colorado, United States
    Posts
    8,565
    Quote Originally Posted by Goldwater View Post
    Shouldn't be just the woman's responsibilty, yes she bears the child but the man has half the ingredients needed. ;) Maybe more laws forcing male responsibility in the pregnancy could work in some way.

    You made the decision, deal with the consequences.
    Wasn't my argument but I agree. As for me, if I were the one who had to bear the brunt of the consequences, I would be much more on guard. Why spread your legs knowing you could get pregnant and not taking precautions? Make bad choices, deal with the consequences.
    Education without values, as useful as it is, seems rather to make man a more clever devil.
    C. S. Lewis
    Do not ever say that the desire to "do good" by force is a good motive. Neither power-lust nor stupidity are good motives. (Are you listening Barry)?:mad:
    Ayn Rand
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #104  
    Power CUer FlaGator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    The Swamps of N. Florida
    Posts
    22,432
    The thing I find most interesting about this whole exchange is that Wilbur heroically maintains his position but he lacks one thing in is argument, the ethics of the issue. He scientifically validates his view point by researching information that allows him to classify a embryo as non human. He considers the embryo a clump of cells that have no right to exist beyond the rights the mother who carries the embryo chooses give it. Itís of more importance to establish the scientific definition of the embryo having human life than it is to recognize that it is alive. It feeds and needs shelter from the elements so it is alive. Since it carries half the DNA of the mother it can be thought of as an organ within the mother's body more than a parasite.

    Wilbur asks himself is it scientifically acceptable to terminate an embryo and not if it is right to terminate an embryo. This sidesteps the whole moral issue of abortion and regulates it to a scientific one. It is scientifically ok to end the existences of the fetus because it doesn't feel pain and can't think as a real human does. In short, the embryo is being objectified in order to disassociate the responsibility of pre-maturely ending a life, a life that if left to its own devices would probably become a human. What I glean from all this is Wilburís point of view is kill it before its human and it scientifically acceptable.

    I believe in Christianity as I believe that the sun has risen: not only because I see it, but because by it I see everything else.
    C. S. Lewis
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #105  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Woodland Park, Colorado, United States
    Posts
    8,565
    I never grieved for the loss of an appendix, our 19 month old still born was another matter. The fetus looked exactly like a baby to my eyes. I'm certain that it too could have felt pain had we inflicted any pain.

    Wilbur chooses to deny the morals of the issues and will not be moved from it.

    Maybe he should look at the girls who regret making that decision. I'd bet none of those grils regret having any other "elective" surgeries.
    Education without values, as useful as it is, seems rather to make man a more clever devil.
    C. S. Lewis
    Do not ever say that the desire to "do good" by force is a good motive. Neither power-lust nor stupidity are good motives. (Are you listening Barry)?:mad:
    Ayn Rand
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #106  
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    3,852
    Quote Originally Posted by FlaGator View Post
    The thing I find most interesting about this whole exchange is that Wilbur heroically maintains his position but he lacks one thing in is argument, the ethics of the issue. He scientifically validates his view point by researching information that allows him to classify a embryo as non human. He considers the embryo a clump of cells that have no right to exist beyond the rights the mother who carries the embryo chooses give it. It’s of more importance to establish the scientific definition of the embryo having human life than it is to recognize that it is alive. It feeds and needs shelter from the elements so it is alive. Since it carries half the DNA of the mother it can be thought of as an organ within the mother's body more than a parasite.

    Wilbur asks himself is it scientifically acceptable to terminate an embryo and not if it is right to terminate an embryo. This sidesteps the whole moral issue of abortion and regulates it to a scientific one. It is scientifically ok to end the existences of the fetus because it doesn't feel pain and can't think as a real human does. In short, the embryo is being objectified in order to disassociate the responsibility of pre-maturely ending a life, a life that if left to its own devices would probably become a human. What I glean from all this is Wilbur’s point of view is kill it before its human and it scientifically acceptable.
    I don't know what you have been reading, but i have addressed the moral problems of abortion as well as the scientific side head on... directly... the WHOLE time. Personhood isn't a scientific concept... placing value in this thing I refer to as personhood is a philosophical/moral conclusion.. whether you personally acknowledge it or not, its a pretty well accepted measure and reason for why we bother with human rights of others and why we generally have respect for their wishes.

    Scientifically we can tell when a fetus is capable of personhood.... when consciousness begins... That is the scientific component. Philosophy helps us determine why... science tells us when. The ironic part is my arguments are extremely similar to every pro-lifer here, including yours. Your 'scientific' claim is that 'personhood begins at conception'. Mine is it begins later as brain activity begins. Ultimately we both rest on some philosophical reasoning to determine why these things are 'valuable'.

    I say pro-lifer arguments are the dehumanizing ones because they trivialize real persons while placing undue importance on things like strands of DNA... as if it is equal to a person. Completely disconnected from the well being and suffering of real live persons.. and actually makes one truly believe that a few strands of DNA or a few cells are worth more than the person who must support them... its really seems very perverse when you look at it honestly from that perspective.
    Last edited by wilbur; 12-27-2008 at 02:06 AM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #107  
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    3,852
    Quote Originally Posted by AmPat View Post
    You just confirmed my point. Now on to your other point, here is a solution that always works and avoids the abortion question entirely,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, ,,,,,,,,,,

    CLOSE YOUR LEGS OR DEAL WITH THE RESPONSIBILITY OF A CHILD!;)
    And just how do you plan to get people to close their legs?? Sermons, bitching about the immorality in pop culture, and doing your best to maximize life shattering consequences of sex? Let me know how that goes.... in the meantime, while we wait for this master strategy to play out, we won't force women to be incubators against their wishes, for a being no pro-lifer would care about should it ever exit her midsection. Cool?
    Last edited by wilbur; 12-27-2008 at 02:07 AM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #108  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Woodland Park, Colorado, United States
    Posts
    8,565
    Quote Originally Posted by wilbur View Post
    And just how do you plan to get people to close their legs?? Sermons, bitching about the immorality in pop culture, and doing your best to maximize life shattering consequences of sex? Let me know how that goes.... in the meantime, while we wait for this master strategy to play out, we won't force women to be incubators against their wishes, for a being no pro-lifer would care about should it ever exit her midsection. Cool?
    No, not cool. I don't give a crap how or IF they close their legs. The point you missed by a globe is that they play, they pay. CLEAR?
    The price of promiscuity needs to be paid by momma slut, not innocent baby. Cool?
    Education without values, as useful as it is, seems rather to make man a more clever devil.
    C. S. Lewis
    Do not ever say that the desire to "do good" by force is a good motive. Neither power-lust nor stupidity are good motives. (Are you listening Barry)?:mad:
    Ayn Rand
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #109  
    Quote Originally Posted by FlaGator View Post
    The thing I find most interesting about this whole exchange is that Wilbur heroically maintains his position but he lacks one thing in is argument, the ethics of the issue. He scientifically validates his view point by researching information that allows him to classify a embryo as non human. He considers the embryo a clump of cells that have no right to exist beyond the rights the mother who carries the embryo chooses give it. Itís of more importance to establish the scientific definition of the embryo having human life than it is to recognize that it is alive. It feeds and needs shelter from the elements so it is alive. Since it carries half the DNA of the mother it can be thought of as an organ within the mother's body more than a parasite.

    Wilbur asks himself is it scientifically acceptable to terminate an embryo and not if it is right to terminate an embryo. This sidesteps the whole moral issue of abortion and regulates it to a scientific one. It is scientifically ok to end the existences of the fetus because it doesn't feel pain and can't think as a real human does. In short, the embryo is being objectified in order to disassociate the responsibility of pre-maturely ending a life, a life that if left to its own devices would probably become a human. What I glean from all this is Wilburís point of view is kill it before its human and it scientifically acceptable.
    Quote Originally Posted by wilbur View Post
    I don't know what you have been reading, but i have addressed the moral problems of abortion as well as the scientific side head on... directly... the WHOLE time. Personhood isn't a scientific concept... placing value in this thing I refer to as personhood is a philosophical/moral conclusion.. whether you personally acknowledge it or not, its a pretty well accepted measure and reason for why we bother with human rights of others and why we generally have respect for their wishes.

    Scientifically we can tell when a fetus is capable of personhood.... when consciousness begins... That is the scientific component. Philosophy helps us determine why... science tells us when. The ironic part is my arguments are extremely similar to every pro-lifer here, including yours. Your 'scientific' claim is that 'personhood begins at conception'. Mine is it begins later as brain activity begins. Ultimately we both rest on some philosophical reasoning to determine why these things are 'valuable'.

    I say pro-lifer arguments are the dehumanizing ones because they trivialize real persons while placing undue importance on things like strands of DNA... as if it is equal to a person. Completely disconnected from the well being and suffering of real live persons.. and actually makes one truly believe that a few strands of DNA or a few cells are worth more than the person who must support them... its really seems very perverse when you look at it honestly from that perspective.
    I don' t worry about when or where a baby is a person or has consiousness. If you don't want a baby that's OK. Just don't get pregnant. If you do, I don't really care about your rights, your suffering, or whatever. You got yourself into this, deal with it.

    Ok, that means I can get an abortion, right? No. Wilbur you place more "value" upon the mother than you do a clump of cells. Fine and I applaud you for your consistency. However where we differ is that I simply cannot dismiss the value of a "clump of cells". Where there is a potential for life my default position is always on the side of the "potential life" because it is too precious of a thing to just throw away as a result of someone making a choice that had negative consequences.

    Maybe we will have to respectfully agree to disagree here. You are a skilled and consistent debater Wilbur, however I cannot subscribe to your ideas.

    :)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #110  
    Power CUer FlaGator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    The Swamps of N. Florida
    Posts
    22,432
    Quote Originally Posted by wilbur View Post
    I don't know what you have been reading, but i have addressed the moral problems of abortion as well as the scientific side head on... directly... the WHOLE time. Personhood isn't a scientific concept... placing value in this thing I refer to as personhood is a philosophical/moral conclusion.. whether you personally acknowledge it or not, its a pretty well accepted measure and reason for why we bother with human rights of others and why we generally have respect for their wishes.

    Scientifically we can tell when a fetus is capable of personhood.... when consciousness begins... That is the scientific component. Philosophy helps us determine why... science tells us when. The ironic part is my arguments are extremely similar to every pro-lifer here, including yours. Your 'scientific' claim is that 'personhood begins at conception'. Mine is it begins later as brain activity begins. Ultimately we both rest on some philosophical reasoning to determine why these things are 'valuable'.

    I say pro-lifer arguments are the dehumanizing ones because they trivialize real persons while placing undue importance on things like strands of DNA... as if it is equal to a person. Completely disconnected from the well being and suffering of real live persons.. and actually makes one truly believe that a few strands of DNA or a few cells are worth more than the person who must support them... its really seems very perverse when you look at it honestly from that perspective.
    You may believe that you are addressing the moral issues involved but I believe that you are wrong. You are rationalizing and using science to justify your rationalization of what is human and is not human. You establish a line and say we can kill it here but not after this point. I say that if it has the potential to be a living, breathing person then it should be treated as such. Any thing less is to deny the embryo/fetus the opportunity to live out a life. My point of view is "don't kill it, for he or she has the potential to do great things. You define the embryo as not human so it can be killed at the mother's whim.

    For the record I do not say that personhood begins at conception. I say that they right to become a person begins at conception and only nature can take that right away. The moral and ethical thing to do is to let that clump of cells develop to it's fullest potential. The embryo was created by the mutual sharing of DNA between, more often than not, to consenting individuals who knew the potential out come of their actions was a child. They willingly rolled the biological dice and created life. Now they have the responsibility to keep the bargain they made with nature and take care of the developing human at least until he or she is born. Anything less is self-centered behavior out of control and to advocate such a position is to advocate freeing people from the consequences of their actions.
    Last edited by FlaGator; 12-27-2008 at 07:50 AM.

    I believe in Christianity as I believe that the sun has risen: not only because I see it, but because by it I see everything else.
    C. S. Lewis
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
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
  •