Are pro-choicers worse than Holocaust deniers?

  • Thread starter Thread starter ribozyme
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
ribozyme said:
They do not possess any preferences. For example, if one terminates the life of an embryo, it does not suffer (or have any interests) because it obviously hasn’t differentiated enough to form even a rudimentary nervous system.
Click to expand...
Yes, the fetus CAN feel pain at the point that most abortions are performed. By 8 weeks (though, as another poster said, some studies are going to 6 weeks) the sympathetic nervous system is present. How can you say that it does not suffer or feel pain? That is simply not true. But, of course, that is an answer I would expect from a pro-abortionsist–you guys always seem to ignore science on this issue.

In Christ,
Rand
 
Rand_Al_Thor said:
Yes, the fetus CAN feel pain at the point that most abortions are performed. By 8 weeks (though, as another poster said, some studies are going to 6 weeks) the sympathetic nervous system is present. How can you say that it does not suffer or feel pain? That is simply not true. But, of course, that is an answer I would expect from a pro-abortionsist–you guys always seem to ignore science on this issue.

In Christ,
Rand
Click to expand...
But whether the unborn child can feel pain or not is immaterial. The issue is that the child is a living human being.

As several have pointed out, if “feeling pain” were a criteria, simply administering an anesthetic would make murder morally and legally acceptable.
 
vern_humphrey said:
But whether the unborn child can feel pain or not is immaterial. The issue is that the child is a living human being.

As several have pointed out, if “feeling pain” were a criteria, simply administering an anesthetic would make murder morally and legally acceptable.
Click to expand...
I know. That the child is a living human being was my initial argument, and remains my foremost one. I was just pointing out that he was wrong about the child not being able to feel pain.

In Christ,
Rand
 
Rand_Al_Thor said:
I know. That the child is a living human being was my initial argument, and remains my foremost one. I was just pointing out that he was wrong about the child not being able to feel pain.

In Christ,
Rand
Click to expand...
Understood. My point is he’s begging the question. By advancing the argument “the child can’t feel pain” he tries to trick us into accepting that the ability to feel pain is a valid argument.
 
vern_humphrey said:
Understood. My point is he’s begging the question. By advancing the argument “the child can’t feel pain” he tries to trick us into accepting that the ability to feel pain is a valid argument.
Click to expand...
Peter Singer says we should respect interests and one interest that almost everyone has is the desire not to suffer. BTW, feeling pain is not the equivalent of suffering though. One can be depressed and not be in a state of pain although they are suffering. Maybe SSRIs will help them.
 
ribozyme said:
Peter Singer says we should respect interests and one interest that almost everyone has is the desire not to suffer. BTW, feeling pain is not the equivalent of suffering though. One can be depressed and not be in a state of pain although they are suffering. Maybe SSRIs will help them.
Click to expand...
Still begging the question – the unborn child is human, and it is the killing of an innocent human that makes the crime of murder.
 
vern_humphrey said:
Still begging the question – the unborn child is human, and it is the killing of an innocent human that makes the crime of murder.
Click to expand...
Singer rejects anthropocentric ethics. How does invoking the species not beg the question too?
 
ribozyme said:
Singer rejects anthropocentric ethics. How does invoking the species not beg the question too?
Click to expand...
So how does he justify his body killing bacteria to save him from dying from infection?:rotfl:

If he were sincere, he would take immuno-suppressants to prevent his white cells from killing bacteria – and so would you.😛
 
vern_humphrey said:
So how does he justify his body killing bacteria to save him from dying from infection?:rotfl:

If he were sincere, he would take immuno-suppressants to prevent his white cells from killing bacteria – and so would you.😛
Click to expand...
Bacteria do not have interests though. They do not have a nervous system, especially because they are unicellular and they obviously do not have a complex enough nervous system.
 
ribozyme said:
Bacteria do not have interests though. They do not have a nervous system, especially because they are unicellular and they obviously do not have a complex enough nervous system.
Click to expand...
But **you **said:
Singer rejects anthropocentric ethics. How does invoking the species not beg the question too?
Click to expand...
:rotfl:
 
Peter Singer says we should respect interests and one interest that almost everyone has is the desire not to suffer. BTW, feeling pain is not the equivalent of suffering though. One can be depressed and not be in a state of pain although they are suffering. Maybe SSRIs will help them.
Click to expand...
If everyone has a desire not to suffer, where did we all come from?
Trust me childbirth entails a great deal of suffering.

Mr. Singer uses subjective criteria to decide who gets to live and who gets to die.

Why does lack of “self-awareness” qualify as a good criteria to put a human being to death? How self-aware is a 1 year old? Studies show many babies do not recognize themselves in a mirror at that age. Should this study be used as proof that babies are not self-aware. What about video of pre born twins interacting with each other? Are they self aware? Who decides?

The objective criteria of being human is what must suffice in safeguarding the right to life.
 
Mary_Gail_36 said:
The objective criteria of being human is what must suffice in safeguarding the right to life.
Click to expand...
And anyone who offers different criteria is simply begging the question. Let us not allow them to lead us down the garden path by debating inconsequential matters. The unborn child is human. To kill an innocent human is murder – end of story.
 
ribozyme said:
Bacteria do not have interests though. They do not have a nervous system, especially because they are unicellular and they obviously do not have a complex enough nervous system.
Click to expand...
So you’re not as altruistic as you say you are. You are guilty of specism. What gives you the right to determine what species deserve protection?
 
estesbob said:
So you’re not as altruistic as you say you are. You are guilty of specism. What gives you the right to determine what species deserve protection?
Click to expand...
It’s inherent in the beast. Anyone with the hubris to declare certain humans can be lawfully put to death on a whim has the hubris to hold any position. It’s an extreme form of antinomianism.
 
vern_humphrey said:
It’s inherent in the beast. Anyone with the hubris to declare certain humans can be lawfully put to death on a whim has the hubris to hold any position. It’s an extreme form of antinomianism.
Click to expand...
It’s a common problem among atheists.People who dont beleive in God will believe anything
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top