- Mar 5, 2004
- 17,332
- 6,425
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Lutheran
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- US-Democrat
Imagine for a moment Archivist has been invited to a formal debate about the moral value of humans located inside a womb vs humans located outside a womb. The moderator stands up and introduces Archivist and his debate opponent.
The moderator then turns to the audience and says: "Tonight, we will be examining whether or not humans possess inherent moral value from their conception. Mr.Archivist is taking the position that human beings do not possess inherent moral worth and value from their conception.
The moderator then turns to Mr.Archivist and says, "Mr.Archivist, you have 5 minutes for your opening statement.
Mr.Archivist walks up to the mic, clears his throat and says: "Potential life in being vs actual life in being". He then sits down.
The moderator looks around confused, walks over to Mr.Archivist and says: "Yes, that is the topic for tonight's debate, whether the human in the womb (potential) possesses the same moral worth and value as the human outside the womb (actual). All you did was state the topic, can you please put forth your argument to support your position?
Mr.Archivist looks at the moderator confused like and says: "I just did, were you not listening?"
------------------------------------------------------
The above is essentially what Archivist has done this entire thread. He has not once put forth an actual argument explaining why the actual life in being possesses a level of moral worth that the potential life in being does not. And that's just really odd, and honestly leaves me confused. The entire abortion debate hinges upon that precise question, yet all Archivist has done is asserted that there is a difference. He hasn't once actually explained why there is a difference.
Finally, legal rights do not translate into moral truths. you might as well have said that since abortion is legal it is therefore morally acceptable. Hopefully you can recognize that something being legal or illegal has no bearing at all on whether or not that action is moral. We look to Scripture to determine morality. If Christianity became illegal and you were told to burn your Bible and never pray, would you do it? The law said to, so it must be right!
It would be great if you could provide some substance and content to actually respond to. The depth of your explanation for why an actual life in being possesses more inherent moral worth than a potential life in being has been "because I am saying so". You need to provide more than that to carry on a discussion.
You don't want to carry on a discussion, you just want to present you diatribe while ignoring questions that are presented to you. You complain that I have not answered your questions while you have ignored mine. The fact is that I have answered your questions, you just don't like the answers
You stated that "Mr.Archivist is taking the position that human beings do not possess inherent moral worth and value from their conception." The problem is that I have never said any such thing. That is a lie on your part. What I have said throughout the thread is that in cases where the life of the pregnant woman and the life of the fetus are both at risk, the choice must remain with the pregnant woman because she is the actual life in being. I have never commented on the inherent moral worthb of human beings at any point in their development.
Conversation ended.
Upvote
0