Appeal to Emotion and Rhetoric

[UnworthyApostle]

I was having an abortion debate with a guy and it went something like this:

Me: A. Babies are human beings B.Human’s have rights C Babies have human rights

Him:You forgot the mother’s rights

Me:Well the mother has rights, but she cannot violate another human’s rights

Him-Yes she can

Me-Well, who gives her that right

Him-Nature and the government

Me-Nature does not make laws, man does. As far as the government goes, if it became Pro-Life, would you be Pro-life?

Him-No

Me-So you are giving her the rights

Him-Yea, you’re sick if you do not

Me-Is then there an objective reality?

Him-Yes, reality

Me-Can you know reality?

Him- We can only know part of reality

Me-How do you know your position is not part of the unknown and therefore might be a lie?

Him-You are a religious nut

Me-What made you God?

Him-The woman has rights

Me- So, you could be telling a lie. and I could be right, OR, you could be right, and I am wrong? But how can we know if only part of reality can be known? Both of our positions could be unknown according to your logic.

Him-I am telling a lie

Me-You assert the turh, but admit a lie? That is self contradictory.

Him-You are using sophistry

END

Unfortunately, I just left because him and other’s just went to personal insults to me. I left in charity

 

[R_Daneel]

Your opponent made some serious mistakes, by not pointing out your errors. The first one was not to challenge what is that “right” you speak of. A “right” is a human concoction. Basically, a strong one gives the right to a weak one, that he can perform certain actions without fear of repercussions. That is a “right”. I think you thought about “natural rights”, which is an undefined set of words.

The strongest “guy” around the block is the goverment. The goverment can declare “rights”. For example the US goverment declares that humans are “endowed with certain inalianable rights, life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness”. A whole lot of nice words, for sure. But they don’t mean much. A right is not a right if it cannot be enforced. The goverment cannot ensure your right to life (for example) if it cannot protect it. Also the goverment can declare whatever it wants to be a “right”. The US goverment did restrict the voting to the WASP-s for quite a long time. The same goverment prohibits your way to “pursue happiness”, if it happens to incorporate taking some “unlawful” substances.

So, until some goverment will declare that from the moment of conception, everyone has the “right” to life, there is no “right” to life for the fetuses. Maybe you don’t like that, but that is not the point. Fetuses do not have a “right” to life.

 

[mardukm]

Your opponent made some serious mistakes, by not pointing out your errors. The first one was not to challenge what is that “right” you speak of. A “right” is a human concoction. Basically, a strong one gives the right to a weak one, that he can perform certain actions without fear of repercussions. That is a “right”. I think you thought about “natural rights”, which is an undefined set of words.

The strongest “guy” around the block is the goverment. The goverment can declare “rights”. For example the US goverment declares that humans are “endowed with certain inalianable rights, life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness”. A whole lot of nice words, for sure. But they don’t mean much. A right is not a right if it cannot be enforced. The goverment cannot ensure your right to life (for example) if it cannot protect it. Also the goverment can declare whatever it wants to be a “right”. The US goverment did restrict the voting to the WASP-s for quite a long time. The same goverment prohibits your way to “pursue happiness”, if it happens to incorporate taking some “unlawful” substances.

So, until some goverment will declare that from the moment of conception, everyone has the “right” to life, there is no “right” to life for the fetuses. Maybe you don’t like that, but that is not the point. Fetuses do not have a “right” to life.

So blacks were not full human beings until the government said so. RIIIIIIIIIIGHT (pun intended).

That’s some nice “logic.”

 

[R_Daneel]

So blacks were not full human beings until the government said so. RIIIIIIIIIIGHT (pun intended).

That’s some nice “logic.”

It is a sad fact that they were not given full human rights, they were not **recognized **as “fully” human. The really sad part was that this distinction came from the Bible… what else is new?

 

[Moonstruck888]

I was having an abortion debate with a guy and it went something like this:

Me: A. Babies are human beings B.Human’s have rights C Babies have human rights

First of all, a fetus become a baby after it is born.

Me:Well the mother has rights, but she cannot violate another human’s rights

Actually, since a blastocyst is not recognised in secular law as having any inalienable rights, I can assure you she can terminate it if she wishes.

Me-Well, who gives her that right

It’s the law and the letter.

Me-Nature does not make laws, man does. As far as the government goes, if it became Pro-Life, would you be Pro-life?

In thought, no. In deed I would have to be or risk punative castigation.

Me-So you are giving her the rights

It is neither his place nor yours to take someone elses decisions for her.

Me-Is then there an objective reality?

Utterly irrelevant

Me-How do you know your position is not part of the unknown and therefore might be a lie?

Unfortunately, I just left because him and other’s just went to personal insults to me. I left in charity

I can’t say I blame him. People who take that view, to paraphrase another poster on another thread, should have their head clamped in a vice and be left there until they admit that having their head clamped in a vice is distinctly different from not having their head clamped in a vice.

 

[DPMartin]

It is a sad fact that they were not given full human rights, they were not **recognized **as “fully” human. The really sad part was that this distinction came from the Bible… what else is new?

R Daneel

I can understand your point on “what else is new”. But usually it is a interpretation of something that is written in the Bible that most of the kind it seems that you refer to, seek for the justification of their own sense of self-righteousness. The Bible is an open book and not hidden from any reader, no matter the intent, or heart of the reader.

Your point of recognition by law or gov. is correct in the political arena, but there is the ethical reality that may be in question. Men seek reasons to fulfill their desires, ethical or not. Where is the Hope in that? If it be at the expense of another.

 

[R_Daneel]

I can understand your point on “what else is new”. But usually it is a interpretation of something that is written in the Bible that most of the kind it seems that you refer to, seek for the justification of their own sense of self-righteousness. The Bible is an open book and not hidden from any reader, no matter the intent, or heart of the reader.

I agree 100%… That is one of the evidences that it was not written or “inspired” by God. A deity, which allows such a confused, self-contradicting work is not worth to be believed in.

Your point of recognition by law or gov. is correct in the political arena, but there is the ethical reality that may be in question.

The problem is that “rights” are legal constructs. One may disagree with some of them, but that is not the point here.

Men seek reasons to fulfill their desires, ethical or not. Where is the Hope in that? If it be at the expense of another.

Yes, it happens, and it would be much better, if it did not. Personally I wish that any and all pregnancies would only happen, if both would-be-parents sincerely would want it to happen. It would be much better if they would never happen accidently, or if one party would be against it. A whole lot of problems would disappear. But that is just wishful thinking, a pie in the sky.

 

[DPMartin]

R Daneel
thanks for the reply

I agree 100%… That is one of the evidences that it was not written or “inspired” by God. A deity, which allows such a confused, self-contradicting work is not worth to be believed in.

I would disagree with you there, reason being, just because I don’t understand something or how it is that this is, and that is also, in my own view, does not mean it is not True.

The problem is that “rights” are legal constructs. One may disagree with some of them, but that is not the point here.

Anything one does to, or with, another is of an ethical question, which is the reason for man to institute or enforce law (As in this is lawful to do, that is not), though yes there are other reasons why, laws are made.

Yes, it happens, and it would be much better, if it did not. Personally I wish that any and all pregnancies would only happen, if both would-be-parents sincerely would want it to happen. It would be much better if they would never happen accidently, or if one party would be against it. A whole lot of problems would disappear. But that is just wishful thinking, a pie in the sky.

In the realm of personally speaking I personally believe that the Church and Churches spend more time cursing this generation of Americans then blessing. How can one expect good things in the world, or to be done in the world, if it be cursed, or expect it to respond if the Church members constantly curse it? But if it be Blessed?

 

[UnworthyApostle]

“agree 100%… That is one of the evidences that it was not written or “inspired” by God. A deity, which allows such a confused, self-contradicting work is not worth to be believed in.”

These arguemnts have been dealt with since the 19th century, so I will not bother dealing with it, The “contradictions” can be shown not to be so.

“The problem is that “rights” are legal constructs. One may disagree with some of them, but that is not the point here.”

Rights are legal constructs if and only if, there is no other rigght giver than the government. That is, if you follow a purely materialistic worldview, the government, experts, and others have to be “god”

“First of all, a fetus become a baby after it is born”.

“Actually, since a blastocyst is not recognised in secular law as having any inalienable rights, I can assure you she can terminate it if she wishes.”

Again, this follows from having a purely matrerialistic worldview.ALL OF THESE ARE ASSERTIONS which are MERE OPINIONS. I asked the gentleman if there are universal truths, becuase the materilist wishes not to have them, instead saying that “truth” changes with time. If there are universals, then it is EITHER RIGHT OR WRONG for a situation X. If there are no universals, no one has the right to say what is right nor wrong, because time cannot dictate ethics. As other posters have said, ethics is seperate from government and law. This all flows from deconstructive philosophies which are in grave error.

This leads to begging the question, Women can abort fetuses becuase they have a right, therefore; they have a right so they can abort a fetus.

It is all grounded upon emotions and lack of wanting to take responsibility for actions.

The liberal fascism has hijacked our country and has put up a “god” government and now we are reaping the benefits.

 

[UnworthyApostle]

First of all, a fetus become a baby after it is born.

Actually, since a blastocyst is not recognised in secular law as having any inalienable rights, I can assure you she can terminate it if she wishes.

It’s the law and the letter.

In thought, no. In deed I would have to be or risk punative castigation.

It is neither his place nor yours to take someone elses decisions for her.

Utterly irrelevant

I can’t say I blame him. People who take that view, to paraphrase another poster on another thread, should have their head clamped in a vice and be left there until they admit that having their head clamped in a vice is distinctly different from not having their head clamped in a vice.

All your retorts are merely assumptions with no reason to believe it. While the last view spews out pure emotional rhetoric. This is a generation of “feelings”, if it 'feels" good, it’s okay. Now we have all become a bunch of people who rely on emotion and no logic.

 

[UnworthyApostle]

“agree 100%… That is one of the evidences that it was not written or “inspired” by God. A deity, which allows such a confused, self-contradicting work is not worth to be believed in.”

These arguemnts have been dealt with since the 19th century, so I will not bother dealing with it, The “contradictions” can be shown not to be so.

“The problem is that “rights” are legal constructs. One may disagree with some of them, but that is not the point here.”

Rights are legal constructs if and only if, there is no other rigght giver than the government. That is, if you follow a purely materialistic worldview, the government, experts, and others have to be “god”

“First of all, a fetus become a baby after it is born”.

“Actually, since a blastocyst is not recognised in secular law as having any inalienable rights, I can assure you she can terminate it if she wishes.”

ALL OF THESE ARE ASSERTIONS which do not follow any logical reasoning.

Furthermore,I asked the gentleman if there is objectivity becuase many I encounter say that everything is just subjective.If everything is subjective, then no one can dictate what is right or wrong. As other posters have said, ethics is seperate from government and law.
Because, if what the government does is right, then the Holocaust and Stalinist Russia were perfectly right. I beleive in an objective reality which consists of a corporeal and incorporeal realm. Materialists are forced to just argue on the basis that reality is comprised in only corporeality.

This gentleman, and most other pro-choicers I have met just beg the question, Women can abort fetuses becuase they have a right, therefore; they have a right so they can abort a fetus.

It is all grounded upon emotions and lack of wanting to take responsibility for actions.

 

[mardukm]

It is a sad fact that they were not given full human rights, they were not **recognized **as “fully” human.

So you admit that government has no authority to determine what is or is not human, but merely to “recognize” it.

So you admit that a human being is such objectively even without “recognition” by the government.

That’s what this is all about. Defending the inalienable rights of human beings who are human beings even if the government has not given official “recognition” of the fact.

The really sad part was that this distinction came from the Bible… what else is new?

What distinction? That people in servitude should not be treated as human beings? Sorry. There’s no place in the Bible that says that.

Blessings

 

[mardukm]

I agree 100%… That is one of the evidences that it was not written or “inspired” by God. A deity, which allows such a confused, self-contradicting work is not worth to be believed in.

Like the Constitution. Yep. Gotta throw that in the furnace, as well, according to your “logic.”

The problem is that “rights” are legal constructs. One may disagree with some of them, but that is not the point here.

There are certain rights that are inalienable, such as life. That’s what the Constitutions says. Or perhaps we can’t appel to the Constitution because it’s one of those written things that can be variously interpreted?

Yes, it happens, and it would be much better, if it did not. Personally I wish that any and all pregnancies would only happen, if both would-be-parents sincerely would want it to happen. It would be much better if they would never happen accidently, or if one party would be against it. A whole lot of problems would disappear. But that is just wishful thinking, a pie in the sky.

Can you offer a solution?

Blessings

 

[UnworthyApostle]

I will re-state my argument

A.Human’s have rights apart from government or societal norms

B.Human life begins at conception, therefore; a human being is made

C.An embryo is formed at conception

D.Therefore, embryos have full human rights that exist apart from societal norms or secular laws

 

[R_Daneel]

So you admit that government has no authority to determine what is or is not human, but merely to “recognize” it.

Unfortunately the goverment has the power, and therefore the “authority” to do whatever it wants to do - as long as the people allow it. If the people get together and revolt, then the goverment will fall.

So you admit that a human being is such objectively even without “recognition” by the government.

What is a human being? The DNA only? Or are there other criteria?

That’s what this is all about. Defending the inalienable rights of human beings who are human beings even if the government has not given official “recognition” of the fact.

There are no inalieanable rights. No matter what people say.

What distinction? That people in servitude should not be treated as human beings? Sorry. There’s no place in the Bible that says that.

Not servitude. People of color, the descendants of Noah’s third son are considered inferior. Ask any white supremacist for details.

 

[R_Daneel]

Like the Constitution. Yep. Gotta throw that in the furnace, as well, according to your “logic.”

Was the Constitution “divinely inspired”?

There are certain rights that are inalienable, such as life. That’s what the Constitutions says. Or perhaps we can’t appel to the Constitution because it’s one of those written things that can be variously interpreted?

The Constitution is being interpreted all the time. That is what the judicial system does. But it is a good human attempt (not perfect, of course) to create a decent society, and has nothing to do with God. Your attempt to draw a parallel is irrelevant.

 

[Moonstruck888]

All your retorts are merely assumptions with no reason to believe it. While the last view spews out pure emotional rhetoric. This is a generation of “feelings”, if it 'feels" good, it’s okay. Now we have all become a bunch of people who rely on emotion and no logic.

You are the one basing this whole thing on an assumption, that human beings have rights.

They don’t. There only is one reality for human beings, power. There’s only one way to get power and that is to take it from someone else.

Sad, depressing and demeaning for those of us who don’t want to play that game, but it is the truth. There are no inalienable rights.

 

[Moonstruck888]

There are certain rights that are inalienable, such as life. That’s what the Constitutions says. Or perhaps we can’t appel to the Constitution because it’s one of those written things that can be variously interpreted?

The US constitution is a 220 year old piece of paper that protects 5% of the current human population. The amendments are routinely re-interpreted on the whims of whoever is in power at a given time. it is hardly admissable as evidence that all human beings have inalienable rights.

There was a recent court case in the UK where someone with cancer was forced to take hospital treatment against her will. When it comes down to it, your very right to die can be denied.

 

[UnworthyApostle]

“the truth. There are no inalienable rights.”

Who gave you the authority to make such an assertion?

If it is merely your opinion, your’s is no greater than mine.

You sit on the throne of ultimate subjectivism.

Secondly, this is the rhetoric used by Nazi’s and others to implment genocide which abortion is that of the unborn.

" There only is one reality for human beings"

This is the mere presumtpion of a materialistic worldview. It is merely begging the question saying, there is only one reality(matter), thus; there is no higher realms because all that exists is matter in the one reality.

It is logically self defeating.

 

[Moonstruck888]

“the truth. There are no inalienable rights.”

Who gave you the authority to make such an assertion?

If it is merely your opinion, your’s is no greater than mine.

You sit on the throne of ultimate subjectivism.

Secondly, this is the rhetoric used by Nazi’s and others to implment genocide which abortion is that of the unborn.

" There only is one reality for human beings"

This is the mere presumtpion of a materialistic worldview. It is merely begging the question saying, there is only one reality(matter), thus; there is no higher realms because all that exists is matter in the one reality.

It is logically self defeating.

Logically self defeating maybe, but it is a matter of actual verifiable fact. It may have escaped your notice, but this is not a particularly logical world we live in. If you look at the last five hundred years past, it’s colonial dominion, machiavelian politics and the history of the gun that determine who has all the rights and who doesn’t, not classical logic.

People are being trampled on the world over. The rest of the World exists to service the rich. If people have inalienable rights, who is protecting them? Why are two billion people utterly dispossessed? Why does 95% of the power reside with 1% of the people if we all have inalienable rights to have property and not be property?