The Problem With Toning Down the Rhetoric – And Why We Probably Won’t Do It

  • Thread starter Thread starter canadianguy1143
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Drawmack said:
I’m fairly certain that if you place any person in a room with two people, one whom is very close to them and one they do not know, and set up a scenario where only one person can be saved everyone will save the person they know. Additionally if they know neither person, people are more likely to save the person most similar to themselves (from what they can observe).

However, I do not think that this shows people value some life above other life. By setting up a situation where people must choose to sacrifice one life their only two options are to pick based on some criteria or allow both to die. As long as someone picks, they have shown a respect for human life.

That is the problem with a lot of these scenarios. If you force someone to pick one life over another it does not demonstrate that they value some life more than other life if they do indeed pick. It only shows that they value life enough to save as many as they can.
Click to expand...
In your scenario, they have shown respect for life. They have shown respect for the life the value most by saving it. .

My scenario does not pick one lfe over another. It just asks if one would rush to the rescue of four-year-olds being thrown in a wood chipper. (We already know how folks react when it’s a fetus, so there is no need for any scenarios about that.)
 
Drawmack said:
Which is why we need to conclusively prove, through science, that a human fetus is a person. Rhetoric does not help this, but an argument can be made that it hinders the process.
Click to expand...
Fine. First you have to define the measurable and observable characteristics of a person. What are they?
 
This response may or may not apply at this point in the discussion…I admit I have not read all the replies…BUT…

Would Jesus have toned down the rhetoric??? God Bless…I will ponder this as I make my way to the Perpetual Adoration Chapel…I will listen quietly.:knight2:
 
TheresaLS said:
This response may or may not apply at this point in the discussion…I admit I have not read all the replies…BUT…

Would Jesus have toned down the rhetoric??? God Bless…I will ponder this as I make my way to the Perpetual Adoration Chapel…I will listen quietly.:knight2:
Click to expand...
What do the gospels show of Jesus’ involvement in human rights issues of his day?
 
Drawmack said:
That question is better asked in the thread titled A Different kind of Abortion Debate.
Click to expand...
Could be. But you chose to introduce it here, not there. So, what are the measurable and observable characteristics of a person?
 
WillieWonka said:
Could be. But you chose to introduce it here, not there. So, what are the measurable and observable characteristics of a person?
Click to expand...
I offered scientific debate as an alternative to rhetoric, the topic of this thread. The merits, or demerits, of scientific debate are on topic – the specifics of what scientifically determines what is and is not a child are off topic.
 
WillieWonka said:
What do the gospels show of Jesus’ involvement in human rights issues of his day?
Click to expand...
He would never defend the indefensible and I truly believe with what humanity has accomplished He would preach the gospel od personal responsibilty.
 
Drawmack said:
I offered scientific debate as an alternative to rhetoric, the topic of this thread. The merits, or demerits, of scientific debate are on topic – the specifics of what scientifically determines what is and is not a child are off topic.
Click to expand...
Does all that mean you don’t know what are the measurable and observable characteristics of a person?

Any anti-abortion folks who think science can determine what is a person should consult the more scientifically literate in their movement. There are lots of very well educated and informed anti-abortion people.
 
TheresaLS said:
He would never defend the indefensible and I truly believe with what humanity has accomplished He would preach the gospel od personal responsibilty.
Click to expand...
I don’t dispute that, but it is speculation. The point is, we don’t know much about how Jesus acted. The gospels really tell us very little. We have to determine our behavior ourselves.
 
WillieWonka said:
Does all that mean you don’t know what are the measurable and observable characteristics of a person?
Click to expand...
I said it’s off topic that means it’s off topic. You really should take a class in basic reading comprehension. I think I still have my daughter’s third grade books if you’d like them.
Any anti-abortion folks who think science can determine what is a person should consult the more scientifically literate in their movement. There are lots of very well educated and informed anti-abortion people.
Click to expand...
I agree, but that is still off topic in this thread.
 
WillieWonka said:
I don’t dispute that, but it is speculation. The point is, we don’t know much about how Jesus acted. The gospels really tell us very little. We have to determine our behavior ourselves.
Click to expand...
I will continue to believe that He acted as the Father willed…with truth, love, expection of goodness, rightousness, and a little of fear of the Father. Never simply what made an individual feel good but to be made good out of the love for the Father. Sometimes we can think far too much…God is as He always was. Ah…the simplicity of the Baltimore Catechism!
 
Drawmack said:
I said it’s off topic that means it’s off topic. You really should take a class in basic reading comprehension. I think I still have my daughter’s third grade books if you’d like them.

I agree, but that is still off topic in this thread.
Click to expand...
You did say it was off topic. But you introduced it into the thread, not me.

Can we presume you don’t know the measurable and observable characteristics of a person?
 
In a thread about Rhetoric I expect a lot of it and no “toning down”. 😛
 
WillieWonka said:
You did say it was off topic. But you introduced it into the thread, not me.

Can we presume you don’t know the measurable and observable characteristics of a person?
Click to expand...
No you cannot, you can presume that I introduced the idea of rhetoric hurting scientific debate because that is on topic and that you then attempted to discuss the specifics of scientific debate instead of the effect rhetoric has on scientific debate and I refused to comment because that is off topic. Why do you insist on putting words into peoples mouths and ideas into their heads?
 
WillieWonka said:
Cultural, philosophical, legal, religious, and social norms. These can be in conflict.
Click to expand...
And the Supreme Court removed the issue from the normal democratic process and came down on one side of the conflict with a decision where a person is not a person one second before birth and is a person one second after despite there being no difference in his “observable and measurable characteristics”.
 
Drawmack said:
No you cannot, you can presume that I introduced the idea of rhetoric hurting scientific debate because that is on topic and that you then attempted to discuss the specifics of scientific debate instead of the effect rhetoric has on scientific debate and I refused to comment because that is off topic. Why do you insist on putting words into peoples mouths and ideas into their heads?
Click to expand...
Here’s what you said.

"Which is why we need to conclusively prove, through science, that a human fetus is a person. Rhetoric does not help this, but an argument can be made that it hinders the process. "

Those are your words, not mine.

You want conclusive scientific proof, and you said it here. So, do you know what are the measurable and observable characteristics of a person?

What you are doing is engaging in bogus rhetoric that does nothing but hurt your cause. If you want to succeed, tone it down.
 
miguel said:
And the Supreme Court removed the issue from the normal democratic process and came down on one side of the conflict with a decision where a person is not a person one second before birth and is a person one second after despite there being no difference in his “observable and measurable characteristics”.
Click to expand...
Correct. One can’t point to it as some scienific standard. Like I said, it’s a cultural, philosophical, legal, religious, and social concept. It can change. We can all make up our own definitions, and can’t be shown to be wrong because there is no standard.

What’s your definition of a person?

(Toyota, General Dynamics, and the Catholic Diocese of Chicago are all legal persons.)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top