U
UnworthyApostle
Guest
So, these are emotional/psychological issues with evil? That is another topic within itself.
- Status
M
Moonstruck888
Guest
What’s the point in saying that it is logically determined that human beings have rights when you only have to take a look around to see that they do not?
D
Desertsailor
Guest
You probably believe animals have rights.
R
R_Daneel
Guest
Nobody has “rights”. “Rights” are given by the strong to the weak ones, and they can be revoked at the whim of the strong ones.
H
Hooding_Trees
Guest
fact^
D
Desertsailor
Guest
You need to rethink this one. If this were true God wouldn’t have given Moses the 10 commandments.
R
R_Daneel
Guest
The 10 commandments are a declaration of lack of freedom. They prescibe and proscribe certain behaviors. They declare no rights, and of course they are just a myth. Rights are human conventions, given and taken away when the “rights-giver” - the goverment sees fit.
D
Desertsailor
Guest
So you think murder, theft, lying, and sexual promiscuity are simply freedoms the government took away from you? You have a lot of faith.
R
R_Daneel
Guest
Murder and theft are necessarily curtailed - to protect everyone. But the goverment cannot enforce not to be molested, and retribution does not do any good to someone who has been murdered. You can lie as much as you want to, it is not against the law, except when you are in court, under oath. Sexual behavior is not regulated - though it might be under a theocracy. Fortunately we live in a secular society.
V
vera_dicere
Guest
As said by at least one atheist, yeah, the human uterine entity is not a baby, a baby is simply a stage of development which takes places AFTER birth. Calling the human uterine entity a zygote/embryo/foetus does not demean it, nor deminish its humanity.
With that said, I find the concept of a “right to life” somewhat stupid, because how do you have a right to something you already have? The human uterine entity is fully human, it is fully human for the stage of development it is currently at, whether its at teh stage of a zygote, blastocyst or foetus. To say one has the “right to life” is like saying you have a right to skin.
The real issue is simply the “right to NOT be killed”.
Using the govt. as somethign to dole out “rights” is also a bit dicey, given various govt’s have on occasion removed rights from some and given more rights to others.
The simple fact of the matter, is yes, the woman does have rights, but those rights shoudl not include the right to kill another human being, which is what abortion does.
The pro-aborts would then harp on about how its a woman’s body and she has the right to do with it as she wills and the govt. has no right to tell her what to do with it. Firstly, it is not the woman’s body that is destoryed in an abortion, and secondly, there are lots of things the govt. tells a woman she cannot do with her body, in fact, the govt. pokes its nose in on a lot of things. It tells you when and where you can smoke, if at all, it tells you when, where and under what circumstances you can join the army, it tells you when, where and under what circumstances you can get drunk off your arse, it tells you what drugs you can take or can’t take, it tells you when you can get tattooed.
And I for one, would love to see the day when the govt. says to the woman "yes, if you want, you can have those perfectly functioning legs amuptated, because thye are not “persons” they are simply clumps of cells, in fact, the tax payer will fork out the cost for such an amputation!
Oh, and then there’s taxation! The govt mooching off your bodily resources for its own gain!
There are plenty of times the govt. tells you what you can and can’t do with your body. Plenty of laws that show the govt’s intervention in your life. Why should women get snippy that the law is taking an interest in the value of the child in her womb?
And yeah, you can refer to the human uterine entity as a “child” as a child is defined as anyoen under the age of 12, including those in the gestational stage. [Mosby’s Medical dictionary for nurses and health care professionals, 2007]
With that said, I find the concept of a “right to life” somewhat stupid, because how do you have a right to something you already have? The human uterine entity is fully human, it is fully human for the stage of development it is currently at, whether its at teh stage of a zygote, blastocyst or foetus. To say one has the “right to life” is like saying you have a right to skin.
The real issue is simply the “right to NOT be killed”.
Using the govt. as somethign to dole out “rights” is also a bit dicey, given various govt’s have on occasion removed rights from some and given more rights to others.
The simple fact of the matter, is yes, the woman does have rights, but those rights shoudl not include the right to kill another human being, which is what abortion does.
The pro-aborts would then harp on about how its a woman’s body and she has the right to do with it as she wills and the govt. has no right to tell her what to do with it. Firstly, it is not the woman’s body that is destoryed in an abortion, and secondly, there are lots of things the govt. tells a woman she cannot do with her body, in fact, the govt. pokes its nose in on a lot of things. It tells you when and where you can smoke, if at all, it tells you when, where and under what circumstances you can join the army, it tells you when, where and under what circumstances you can get drunk off your arse, it tells you what drugs you can take or can’t take, it tells you when you can get tattooed.
And I for one, would love to see the day when the govt. says to the woman "yes, if you want, you can have those perfectly functioning legs amuptated, because thye are not “persons” they are simply clumps of cells, in fact, the tax payer will fork out the cost for such an amputation!
Oh, and then there’s taxation! The govt mooching off your bodily resources for its own gain!
There are plenty of times the govt. tells you what you can and can’t do with your body. Plenty of laws that show the govt’s intervention in your life. Why should women get snippy that the law is taking an interest in the value of the child in her womb?
And yeah, you can refer to the human uterine entity as a “child” as a child is defined as anyoen under the age of 12, including those in the gestational stage. [Mosby’s Medical dictionary for nurses and health care professionals, 2007]
K
Koopa
Guest
Whether you think inalienable rights are real or not, you have hit upon the point that pro-lifers are trying to make - murder should be curtailed in order to protect people. So if we prove that a human embryo is a human person, then you agree that abortion should be curtailed. Am I correct?
S
sedonaman
Guest
If “Him’s” mother had exercised what he calls her “right”, then he wouldn’t be around to advocate for abortion. If that isn’t a fallacy, it ought to be.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
Let’s cut the BS and admit that the reason some men support abortion is so they can have an affair, and if the woman becomes pregnant, he can hand her $300, walk away, and not feel guilty.
R
R_Daneel
Guest
I already agree that abortion should be curtailed (not forbidden). I think that abortion is not a “good” thing. I am very sure that no woman ever got pregnant just to have an abortion. It is never “fun”, it is a traumatic experience. I think that it would be wonderful if the whole “conception” process would be volitional, if no conception would ever happen unless both parties actually want it to happen. But this is just wishful thinking. But maybe medical science will come up with something, a perfect birth control method, where both parties must act in a positive fashion to make the conception possible. That would end this whole abortion debate, since there would be no need for it.
If you wish to present an argument that the embrio is a “person” from the very moment of conception, go ahead. I don’t think you can present an argument which I have not heard before, but maybe you will. Better start defining what a “person” is. As for myself, without a functioning mind (the electro-chemical process of the brain) there is no such thing as a “person”.
S
sedonaman
Guest
A pro-abortion editorial appearing in the September 1970 issue of California Medicine contains a revealing statement on lying in the service of killing:
“Since the old ethic has not yet been fully displaced, it has been necessary to separate the idea of abortion from the idea of killing, which continues to be socially abhorrent. The result has been a curious avoidance of the scientific fact, which everybody knows, that human life begins at conception and is continuous whether intra- or extra-uterine until death. The very considerable semantic gymnastics which are required to rationalize abortion as anything but the taking of a human life would be ludicrous if they were not often put forth under socially impeccable auspices. It is suggested that this schizophrenic sort of subterfuge is necessary because while a new ethic is being accepted the old one has not yet been rejected.” [Emphasis added]
“Since the old ethic has not yet been fully displaced, it has been necessary to separate the idea of abortion from the idea of killing, which continues to be socially abhorrent. The result has been a curious avoidance of the scientific fact, which everybody knows, that human life begins at conception and is continuous whether intra- or extra-uterine until death. The very considerable semantic gymnastics which are required to rationalize abortion as anything but the taking of a human life would be ludicrous if they were not often put forth under socially impeccable auspices. It is suggested that this schizophrenic sort of subterfuge is necessary because while a new ethic is being accepted the old one has not yet been rejected.” [Emphasis added]
- Status