Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
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!
It sounds like we're in agreement.
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.
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.
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.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.
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".
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.And the pro-life people who are not religous?
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?