Abortion

[NxNW]

Let's seal a bunch of people in a room with no windows. You can't see into the room. Since you have no way of counting them, must be ok, then, to blow up the room. Hey, can't count them, blow that sucker! Can't be any people in there since we can't count them.

Awesome argument there!

In my example, you can get as close as you want.

 

[coffee4u]

It sounds like we're in agreement.

Since I am pro-life I don't think so. I was just pointing out the fallacy of your argument, that by saying "Nobody else has the right to attach itself to another person without permission." You just made the case for it to be a person.

 

[NxNW]

Beyond that, there's no logical connection between brain function and birth. If sufficient brain function is what makes someone human, then the key there is brain function, not birth.

In that case, we draw the line somewhere in the second trimester. My point was that we clearly have a human being after birth, and so laws already apply regarding life and death once birth has happened.

 

[NxNW]

Since I am pro-life I don't think so. I was just pointing out the fallacy of your argument, that by saying "Nobody else has the right to attach itself to another person without permission." You just made the case for it to be a person.

I was refuting your poor argument that "the unborn should have the same rights as anyone else", by pointing out that you're actually trying to grant a unique right to the unborn that the born don't have. I still maintain that the first trimester unborn are not human beings.

 

[coffee4u]

I was refuting your poor argument that "the unborn should have the same rights as anyone else", by pointing out that you're actually trying to grant a unique right to the unborn that the born don't have. I still maintain that the first trimester unborn are not human beings.

If they are not human beings then who are they?

The first trimester is 12 weeks, the body is fully formed by then.

 

[stevevw]

A zygote is a potential person. But for now, it's a zygote. In the same sense that this:

View attachment 270089


is a potential butterfly. But as of now, it's caterpillar. Just like this:

View attachment 270090


is a potential oak tree. But right now, it's acorn. Potentiality is not the same as actuality.

And an embryo is not a person in the legal sense. Nowhere does the Constitution state, or even imply, that the unborn are persons entitled to the protections of the Bill of Rights and the 14th Amendment. If that's an error, then the proper remedy is a Constitutional amendment.

Yet the caterpillar and acorn are still life, just a stage of life. That is exactly what those in the know, the scientists (pediatricians) who are experts in this area say.

The predominance of human biological research confirms that human life begins at conception—fertilization. At fertilization, the human being emerges as a whole, genetically distinct, individuated zygotic living human organism, a member of the species Homo sapiens, needing only the proper environment in order to grow and develop. The difference between the individual in its adult stage and in its zygotic stage is one of form, not nature. This statement focuses on the scientific evidence of when an individual human life begins.
When Human Life Begins

 

[Strong in Him]

What makes it OK to kill a person on life support? When they aren't a person.

If your daughter was on life support and the doctors wanted to withdraw it because there was no hope of recovery - not the same as killing, btw, since she would already be brain dead - I'm sure you wouldn't say, "go ahead; she's not a person any longer".

 

[pleinmont]

If they are not human beings then who are they?

The first trimester is 12 weeks, the body is fully formed by then.

They are objects which only have the potential to be human beings.

 

[pleinmont]

If your daughter was on life support and the doctors wanted to withdraw it because there was no hope of recovery - not the same as killing, btw, since she would already be brain dead - I'm sure you wouldn't say, "go ahead; she's not a person any longer".

I would have no hesitation in having the life support switched off, once you are brain dead your humanity is gone, imo.

 

[Tinker Grey]

And the pro-life people who are not religous?

Don't have to get abortions. (No one does.) If the non-religious pro-life people have a non-religious pro-life reason, let them present it.

 

[NxNW]

If they are not human beings then who are they?

Not human beings, is all that matters.

The first trimester is 12 weeks, the body is fully formed by then.

The brain is not.

 

[Steve97]

Yes Ben Shapiro has some good points. He points out some of the illogical and contradictory ideas some have about abortion. One being an ad by a Hollywood actress who is showing off her nearly full term pregnancy while advocating the rights of a women having an abortion. Shapiro makes the obvious point that why would a women who is obviously proud and looking forward to having her baby then suddenly wake up one morning and think "today I am going to kill my almost full term baby". But this is the illogical position of the leftist PC culture who will advocate rights to the extreme at the expense of all else without thinking about the consequences.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RDmwPGrZkYs

Mr. Shapiro is also highly educated, does his homework to back up his argument with facts and is fearless in his defense of the unborn.

 

[pleinmont]

Mr. Shapiro is also highly educated, does his homework to back up his argument with facts and is fearless in his defense of the unborn.

It is his opinion, not mine.

 

[Steve97]

It is his opinion, not mine.

Opinions are subjective, the truth can only be objective.

 

[pleinmont]

Opinions are subjective, the truth can only be objective.

It depends on your opinion of the elusive 'truth'.

 

[Steve97]

Tr

It depends on your opinion of the elusive 'truth'.

Truth is absolute. We may not like the truth which often leads to disagreement.

 

[pleinmont]

Tr

Truth is absolute. We may not like the truth which often leads to disagreement.

When it comes to religion there is no truth only opinion.

 

[Dave Ellis]

But we can't place our understanding of things onto God. As a sentient being you place more importance on sentient life (80 odd years of life) because as a non believer that is all there is. Whereas God sees this life in a blink and there is much more value in life after death. To God a person does not lose any life they just go from one form of life to another. So ending this life is just a step. But to an atheist ending someones life has more gravity and therefore moral value.

Can you demonstrate that to be a fact, because all I'm seeing is an assertion without any evidence backing it.

So what if God knew that a particular people were always going to be evil and he warned them to repent but they still went on being evil. In some ways it would be morally wrong to allow that evil to continue as it would harm people especially children. The thing is just because God may be all knowing and powerful does not mean he has or can act on things. The bible says that God has to allow evil to come to its own ends otherwise it cannot be established that evil will always end up causing death and destruction.

Then why did he create evil people?

But also when you say you cannot think of a single scenario where god would be morally justified in killing anyone or anything whose moral value are you using to determine the truth that God is not justified. If you support subjective morality then there would be many scenarios where people would think it justified that may be different to what you think is morally OK or not.

Morality has an objective basis, however our moral decisions are necessarily subjective. However, that's irrelevant. If god exists and he created the universe knowing exactly how it would turn out, then all of the evildoers are acting out part of gods plan. He can't justifiably kill people that are doing what he knew they'd do when he created them that way.

How can you know all the possible factors involved to confidently say that God does not have a justifiable moral reason for acting the way he does. Especially considering that there will not only be factors associated with your worldview of things but also ones that you cannot know as they are about divine reasons.

See above

As mentioned he was acting in association with bringing about his promise to bring a savior for peoples souls which is not exactly something you or I would know about. Or something an atheists would care about to consider. But this would have to be a factor that has to be taken into consideration to truly know whether God was justified or not. You would have to be God to conclusively say that God has no justification.

Why do we need a saviour exactly? One would assume an all powerful god is capable of forgiving people without sending his kid off to be murdered....

The whole story makes no sense.

 

[Dave Ellis]

Funny how atheists always try to derail every thread into a 'does God exist' debate. As if they're suddenly going to find some new approach to that that hasn't been seen in thousands of years of this argument.

Well, when you base all of your arguments on what god has to say, you should be able to actually show this god exists, otherwise we have no reason to take your argument seriously.

 

[Dave Ellis]

All well & good, except that I'm a Christian. We accept the existence of spirits, like God. God, by nature, has no physical "brain" and yet has consciousness. The angles don't have physical "brains" and yet have consciousness. Humans have a spirit/soul which has consciousness apart from a physical body.

So, all you have to do now is disprove the existence of those supernatural things. Otherwise, your argument doesn't go beyond "maybe", which is quite substandard to use to end someone's life.

Suppose you're out hunting, and there's some movement behind a bush. Which sounds like the more morally correct thing to do - 1) go ahead & shoot, maybe it's not a person; or 2) maybe it's a person there, better not shoot?

The fact you accept or believe something doesn't mean it's true. If you're going to make laws to govern the land, you had better ground those laws in objective and demonstrable facts.

Just because you believe in spirits, souls and angels is not a compelling reason to think those are real things. If another religious group tried passing laws based on their theology, you'd be making the same arguments I am against their efforts.

Come back with some evidence, laws should not be based on theology alone.