Arguement for Pro life

  • Thread starter Thread starter mymamamary
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
ManRay said:
I see no evidence that anyone is infallible. You’ll argue all day about what is natural and unnatural, but if I bring up the problem of evil then all of a sudden it BECOMES NECESSARY…the lack of consistency, the lack of logic, the shear contradictory stances that rear their ugly head over, and over is scary. Love is natural, evil is unnatural - so you’re arguing that there is this mason dixon line of human reality where one enters into some space time vaccuum of fantasy and fairy dust -BUT all of the emotions and acts come from the same place- the human mind. Awesome.
Click to expand...
What on EARTH are you talking about?

I’m being serious. I fail to see how this adequately addresses anything at all that we’ve said. Not only that, it’s totally off topic.
 
Marc_Anthony said:
What on EARTH are you talking about?

I’m being serious. I fail to see how this adequately addresses anything at all that we’ve said. Not only that, it’s totally off topic.
Click to expand...
Uhmmm whaaaa? Dude - I’m like a super Christian. When I wake up in the morning atheist children throughout America start crying uncontrollably. When I put on my jeans one leg at a time, it’s as if the very waves of the ocean are crashing against the beaches of secularism. I need four thrones. One for each leg, and one for each hemisphere of my brain. My skull is packed with so much divine brain juice that my neck becomes weak, and fatigued at times. People actually feel sorry for my neck. It’s true. Sometimes I climb upon my bicycle - which I call “rolling head wound” and cruise around crushing weak secular arguments while eating doritos, and ring dings… I enjoy driving my enemies before me and hearing the lamentations of their women. I enjoy triumph. I also like puppies. To eat. Because I’ve learned through my thousand plus years upon this earth that puppies are indeed evil.
 
ManRay said:
I would argue that at one time or another every human being is not on capable of these things, but act upon them in some way or another. Usually daily - but could never admit to it.
Click to expand...
On this we totally agree. I myself see myself daily doing imperfect things. But I know they are not intrinsic to human nature - I know I’m not like that. Which is also why I know that I can be much better, and I keep working on it. Otherwise the effort would be pointless! 🙂
 
I always say when the sperm hits the egg is it a growing human being? Knowing that, why kill it. I’ve seen more compassion for a week long pregant cat than a woman filled with new human life.
 
ManRay said:
IM ABSOLUTELY SURE I WANT TO GO THIS ROUTE!!! You are having a hard time digesting simple English my friend. That is understandable but don’t misrepresent my arguments to validate yours!!! The word puppy is a descriptor within the already established form that is dog.
Click to expand...
MR:

And, “acorn” is a descriptor within the already established form that is oak tree. I know precisely what it will grow up to if left to itself in nature: an oak tree. It matters not that it does not, at this time, look like the oak tree of my imagination. The matter within the corn is oak tree matter.
Get real. A puppy has the form of a dog. I stated in no uncertain terms that form was part of it.
Click to expand...
So, what else will an acorn grow into?
Once again A puppy has the form of a dog.
Click to expand...
At a stage in its growth. At seventy-two hours old it doesn’t.
Not the form of a cell, or a kitten, or a plant. ARE YOU KIDDING ME??? A cell has NO FORM of person hood. There isn’t even a brain. It’s a cellular structure. It isn’t a person. It is a ‘potential person’…
Click to expand...
I’m sorry but that is the most absurd thing that you’ve said so far. You are, I believe, being disingenuously argumentative.
A child has the form of a person…and so on, and so on.
Click to expand...
How about the day before it showed rudimentary arms and legs?
Better than you guys — sheesh. I’m not misrepresenting your arguments. I’m not throwing straw men at you guys. I’m not the one twisting contexts. This is weak.🙂
Click to expand...
But you are purposely distorting reality to your version of it.
This is amazing. First I said form is part of it. Second there is a difference between evolving form, and becoming something different.
Click to expand...
I am going to debate this topic one last time with you, for the sake of at least showing you how to be hospitable. But, beyond this, I simply don’t have the time. The matter in the acorn is a potency for the oak tree that grows from it. Precisely as oak, the oak tree in a primary and essential way is the term of the acorn’s motion. Unless killed or eaten, an acorn will always tend towards growing into a full-sized, adult oak tree of what ever type it is a member of. In other words, the matter of an acorn tends to the form of the oak tree. Nothing else on Earth tends toward that “look.”. Doesn’t this knowledge tend to make any notion that the acorn does not educe the oak tree an absurdity? Your trying to imply implausibility where there isn’t any.
You have to be able to understand this. A child grows, but it still possesses the form of a person from the 40-140 pounds.
Click to expand...
You have to be able to understand this: your concept that a thing is only what it looks like, won’t hold much of any scientific value. Many crystals look like salt, but naught but salt is salt. A valuable diamond can become lost in a maze of shattered glass. Quasimodo may not have looked human, but he was. A cheetah may look like a leopard, but it isn’t. A leaf bug looks like a leaf but it isn’t. There are hundreds, perhaps thousands of examples of things that look like other things. In plants and animals this is called mimicry. Thus, a thing may not be what it looks like.
Are you kidding me? The only way your logic holds water is if you believe that a caterpillar is a butterfly, and a butterfly is a caterpillar. You know this isn’t true, but you’ll argue it anyway within the context of this debate because that is exactly what you are doing. A caterpillar perishes before it becomes a butterfly. How would you describe it in a way that someone would understand what you were talking about.
Click to expand...
I’m sorry. This has become totally absurd. The caterpillar does not die, per se, it molts and each molt changes its form in stages.
If you have an assignment in Earthscience class that requires you to collect samples of caterpillars and butterflys are you just going to bring back a bunch of caterpillars, and try and convince the teacher that they are butterflys? really? If I want to see someone’s butterfly collection and they show me a collection of caterpillars I’ll send em your way.
Click to expand...
How old are you?
I’m pretty sure I’m spot on. thanx for the compliment. I do feel like I’m being misrepresented, and the contexts are being seriously twisted…but oh well.
Click to expand...
I think you’re an interesting youngster who thinks he knows more than he knows. It’s time for this older guy to bow out. Enjoyed chatting with you.

God bless,
jd
 
JDaniel said:
MR:

And, “acorn” is a descriptor within the already established form that is oak tree. I know precisely what it will grow up to if left to itself in nature: an oak tree. It matters not that it does not, at this time, look like the oak tree of my imagination. The matter within the corn is oak tree matter.
Uhm - no it doesn’t. An acorn doesn’t have a trunk, leaves, roots, etc…etc… It in no way possesses the form of a tree. You are sick with dissonance. Annnd that pretty much destroys the rest of your argument. Regardless of my age I’m leaps and bounds above you obviously. Don’t let the door hit you on the way out - oh and below is a group of puppies at 72 hours old. Why don’t you argue with me that they don’t posses the form of a dog/canine - argue that they are cats, or cells, or sprouts, or acorns. Yea pal…you rock. Peace out brother.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
ManRay said:
Uhmmm whaaaa? Dude - I’m like a super Christian. When I wake up in the morning atheist children throughout America start crying uncontrollably. When I put on my jeans one leg at a time, it’s as if the very waves of the ocean are crashing against the beaches of secularism. I need four thrones. One for each leg, and one for each hemisphere of my brain. My skull is packed with so much divine brain juice that my neck becomes weak, and fatigued at times. People actually feel sorry for my neck. It’s true. Sometimes I climb upon my bicycle - which I call “rolling head wound” and cruise around crushing weak secular arguments while eating doritos, and ring dings… I enjoy driving my enemies before me and hearing the lamentations of their women. I enjoy triumph. I also like puppies. To eat. Because I’ve learned through my thousand plus years upon this earth that puppies are indeed evil.
Click to expand...
If you’re trying to be funny, I’m not amused.

Your arguments are becoming more and more wildly off the mark as the thread goes on-you don’t have a leg to stand on here. I mean, come on-that “form of a tree” thing is completely ridiculous. A nine year old and a teenager are very different in the way they look, think, and even act. I guess the nine year old isn’t human?
 
Lydia McGrew, a well known Christian apologist, wrote a good article on the subject today.

whatswrongwiththeworld.net/2012/10/the_sillyclevers_on_the_subjec.html

She wrote this:
Well, what about the standard pro-life point that a newborn baby is not conscious and thinking to anything like the degree that most personhood theorists are looking for? (That is why Peter Singer says that newborns don’t have a right to life.) What about the fact that the newborn baby was an unborn baby just a few hours before and has not become more “conscious and thinking” merely in virtue of being born? If it is the mere fact that Ryan’s unborn child didn’t look like a baby that (for some implausible reason or other) has Gopnik’s mind all twisted out of shape, what would Gopnik say to a ban on all abortions after, say, eight weeks’ gestation or so, when the unborn child looks, by golly, just like a baby? Hint: He wouldn’t go for it.
Click to expand...
Then there is the arbitrariness argument that pro-lifers have been making ad infinitum–namely, that it is arbitrary to pick some particular level of present consciousness in the individual human being upon which to bestow the accolade of “life worthy of life.” The human level of manifested, on-line consciousness ebbs and flows with various physical conditions, with anesthesia, deep sleep, or mental impairment, which may be either short-term or long-term.
Click to expand...
Of course, one could go on and on, and this is all familiar ground to pro-lifers. Gopnik thinks he can get past it by a sneer, by stomping his foot, and by uttering, “A bean is not a baby.” That’s great, Mr. Gopnik, and fetal pigs aren’t immature pigs either, then, I suppose? And this is science?
Click to expand...
 
Marc_Anthony said:
If you’re trying to be funny, I’m not amused.

Your arguments are becoming more and more wildly off the mark as the thread goes on-you don’t have a leg to stand on here. I mean, come on-that “form of a tree” thing is completely ridiculous. A nine year old and a teenager are very different in the way they look, think, and even act. I guess the nine year old isn’t human?
Click to expand...
I could care less if your amused…who exactly do you think you are? None of my points are off the mark. Sorry. It’s only ridiculous because it shatters your world view as it pertains to abortion. It’s the rampant dissonance of the religious mind. In every part of your life you identify and define objects, things etc… by their forms* among other things* - The identity of a thing has to meet certain criteria or your life would be awash in a sea of confusion. you would never know what anything was or wasn’t. But when discussing the supernatural the religious throws all of this out the window - they have to or it shatters their belief system. Cognitive dissonance. Everything that would never make sense in another aspect of your life - automagically makes sense when discussing god. It’s bunk…total bunk. So every time you ask for a book, I’ll bring you a magazine. If you need a car - I’ll bring you a bike. Like I said. I have my B.A. in philosophy - I’m not here to give you an education unless you want to pay me, but you guys throw around this ‘101’ jab as if you actually know what you are talking about. These little pet phrases from the peanut gallery of severely average knowledge. Spare me. Want to talk 101? ARISTOTLE - Lets just start there - Do you know what the law of Identity even is? - ever studied it? Had a class where it was talked about? Everything in existence has a specific nature. This thing exists as something unique, and it possesses characteristics that are an inseparably part of what it is - it’s very simple. A tree is not an acorn, an egg is not a chicken. A dog cannot be a cat. Get jiggy with it - take a larger group such as a writing instument. A pen in not a pencil. Ink is not a pen, an eraser is not a pencil. etc… cells are not people. Each entity exists as something specific, its identity is particular, and it cannot exist as something else.
A=A
Things can indeed have more than one characteristic, but any characteristic it ‘may’ have is a part of its identity. A car can be both silver and red, but not at the same time or not in the same respect. Whatever piece is blue can’t be red at the same time, in the same way. Half the car can be red, and the other half blue…fair enough… But the whole car can’t be both red and blue at the same time. Each color has it’s own identity.
Religionists have a hard time understanding this because it makes it explicit that reality has a definite/defined nature. Since reality has an identity, it is knowable. Since it exists in a particular way, it has no contradictions. God, and the supernatural fail in the empirical and demonstrable aspect of reality. If it didn’t everyone would recognize god! We really don’t have people arguing whether the sun exists, or whether gravity exists - Tell them to jump off a building. So some guy (giant metaphor) who has a made up authority (which makes sense) claims something is so, and people believe it, because they just really already believed it anyway. You have trouble understanding something - you need an answer - someone says hey - it’s god! Boom - case closed. It’s usually the people who recognize that a ghosts exist who seem to see the ghosts. People who think we’ve been visited by aliens see them all the time! Neato! Which leads us to the law of non contradiction. Something cannot be one thing, and another thing at the same time…ok im tired
 
ManRay said:
"…I’m pro life and pro rights…"
Then you say, “… Something cannot be one thing, and another thing at the same time…”

You keep telling us how smart you are, so, … which is it ?
Click to expand...
 
Clearly the posters of this thread can’t get along with each other.

Thread closed.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top