Debates on Christianity, Creation vs Evolution, Philosophy, Politics and Religion, Ethics, Current Events, and Religious issues

Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13

Reply to topic
Texan Christian
First Post
PostPosted: Thu Apr 28, 2016 12:30 am  Abortion Reply with quote

Do y'all believe it is acceptable for a woman to have an abortion?

IMO:

when a woman says "I should decide what to do with my body" I'm like "well... first of all that baby isn't part of your body, it's someone else's body, so yeah..."

what're yalls views on this topic? post below!

Good day and God Bless Smile
Post BBCode URL - Right click and save to clipboard to use later in post Post 121: Wed Nov 28, 2018 3:46 pm
Reply

Like this post
Kenisaw wrote:

To me this is a simple topic.

Humans are defined as "humans" in many different ways. One of the most notable is our DNA. We even use DNA to define specific humans in courtrooms every day.

If a unique set of DNA defines who a human is in a court of law, and a fetus or zygote contains a unique set of DNA, then it should be considered a unique human being. The Constitution in my country guarantees the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. That applies to all humans, including unborn ones.

I know woman see it as their body, but technically it's another human's body inside their body. That may be inconvenient for women, but they can take it up with evolution if they don't like it.


Let's grant the human being part here (I agree with it on a technical level anyways).
So with that being accepted, morning after pills and IUDs would then be an abortion of a human being (assuming fertilization had taken place of course).

I assume to be consistent, you are against morning after pills and IUDs? If not, why not?

When the founders said: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”

Do you think they were talking about a human being or a human person?

I ask because the question as to when a human person begins is a philosophical question not a scientific question.

I believe that I am a person because I think. More specifically, I am aware that I am thinking. I may be unaware of the mechanics underlying my thought, the firing of neurons, the wash and flow of neurotransmitters and hormones, but I am quite certain of this internal voice I possess that allows me to talk to myself and question the mental processes that result in the actions, experiences, and opinions that make up me. Also, I am able to (perhaps imperfectly) express that interal mental state to others.

However, if you, like I can, express your interal state to me (again, however imperfectly), I can begin to make an assumption that there is sufficient like experience shared between us that I can conditionally agree that you are, in fact, a person like I believe that I am.

So personhood would seem to be conditional.

So I ask, does a human being, gah, really shouldn't use that word..
So I ask, does a fetus posses a mechanism for thought or awareness? Technically a human being, sure... (still lacks description though) but human person, not so much.

Goto top, bottom
View user's profile 
Post BBCode URL - Right click and save to clipboard to use later in post Post 122: Sat Dec 01, 2018 12:01 pm
Reply

Like this post
[Replying to post 121 by Clownboat]

Quote:
Quote:
It never fails . . . those with weak or no arguments can never acknowledge the wrongness of something.

Readers, please notice this empty claim and how how he failed to even referrence a weak argument that I have made.



My comment was referencing your previous post when you said, “The value of an unwanted blastocyst/fetus is not the same value that we assign to a baby.” And this, “I would also argue that a 98 year old has more value than an unwanted blastocyst/fetus.” And this, “fetuses we should be giving our attention to saving, not the ones that are by definition 'unwanted'.”

I’m afraid your views are based on opinion – not facts and science.

Let me ask you why does the human being in the womb has less value if the mother wants the fetus than if the mother does not want the fetus? Is the fetus different if he/she is wanted then if he/she is not? Does an unwanted fetus have less cells then a wanted fetus? Less DNA?

Quote:
Quote:
You literally end up with individuals incapable of saying things like . . . "Rape is always wrong" or "The developing human being in your womb has no value"

Readers, now watch how easily it is to destroy this nonsense:
Clownboat: "Rape is always wrong."
Clownboat: "A developing human being (not that this is a very accurate term) in a womb does have value."


So, if someone says rape can be ok – are they wrong? You seem to be admitting the wrongness of rape is not dependent on whether the rapist thinks it is or not. It appears you recognize the illogic of thinking rape and or abortion are dependent on the views of a person.

Then you agree moral absolutes exist and are not dependent on feelings/desire/want? Now was that so hard?

Goto top, bottom
View user's profile 
Post BBCode URL - Right click and save to clipboard to use later in post Post 123: Mon Dec 03, 2018 6:23 am
Reply

Like this post
Kenisaw wrote:

If a unique set of DNA defines who a human is in a court of law...

Well that's not what defines a human in the court of law where I am, so your point is moot. There were multiple attempts at adding the unborn into the law but none has succeded so far. Chances are other great apes will be included as "legal persons" before the unborn would.

RightReason wrote:

Let me ask you why does the human being in the womb has less value if the mother wants the fetus than if the mother does not want the fetus?

Because an evaluator, me in this case, has assigned it less value.

Quote:
Is the fetus different if he/she is wanted then if he/she is not?

No. Value is relative to the evaluator, and not a property of the evaluand.

Quote:
Does an unwanted fetus have less cells then a wanted fetus? Less DNA?

Sometimes yes, sometimes no.

Quote:
So, if someone says rape can be ok – are they wrong?

That depends on who you ask: it's not clear whose point of view you are enquiring about here, the "someone who thinks rape can be ok"'s view or Clownboat's?

Answering for myself, yes, if someone says rape can be ok – they are wrong.

Quote:
You seem to be admitting the wrongness of rape is not dependent on whether the rapist thinks it is or not. It appears you recognize the illogic of thinking rape and or abortion are dependent on the views of a person.

Then you agree moral absolutes exist and are not dependent on feelings/desire/want? Now was that so hard?

That does not follow. You have presented a non-sequitur fallacy:

When you ask me about the wrongness of rape, then that wrongness is not dependent on whether the rapist thinks it is or not, but that wrongness is still dependent on the views of a person - namely mine.

When you ask clownboat about the wrongness of rape, then that wrongness is not dependent on whether the rapist thinks it is or not, but that wrongness is still dependent on the views of a person - namely clownboat's.

When you ask a rapist about the wrongness of rape, then that wrongness is dependent on whether the rapist thinks it is or not.

Nothing was said by either of us would imply that the morality of rape or abortion is independent from the views of a person.

Goto top, bottom
View user's profile 
Post BBCode URL - Right click and save to clipboard to use later in post Post 124: Mon Dec 03, 2018 11:52 am
Reply

Like this post
[Replying to Bust Nak]



Quote:
Kenisaw wrote:


If a unique set of DNA defines who a human is in a court of law...

Well that's not what defines a human in the court of law where I am, so your point is moot.


Just out of curiosity how is a human being defined in the court? But more importantly, is the law always right/good? Does the law determine morality?


Quote:
RightReason wrote:


Let me ask you why does the human being in the womb has less value if the mother wants the fetus than if the mother does not want the fetus?

Because an evaluator, me in this case, has assigned it less value.


Uuumm . . .that’s a little “I think, therefore I am” vague. It’s truly absurd to believe human value is dependent on the opinion of others or even oneself for that matter. I’m not sure why you can’t admit one human being does not get to determine the value of another human being – that the value is intrinsic in being human. The even more mind boggling part is that I don’t even think you actually believe that. I think you can recognize that your child’s value does not come from what little Hitler in Germany thinks about your child. Your child’s value is intrinsic.


Quote:
Quote:
Is the fetus different if he/she is wanted then if he/she is not?

No. Value is relative to the evaluator, and not a property of the evaluand.


So again drawing your argument out to its logical conclusion -- the value of an African American is relative to the evaluator. He or she has no value independent of an outside evaluator? And if the outside evaluator is a white supremacist, the African American is SOL Yeah that makes sense – NOT!


Quote:
Quote:
Does an unwanted fetus have less cells then a wanted fetus? Less DNA?

Sometimes yes, sometimes no.


The very same fetus at the very same stage of development’s value is not dependent on whether he/she is wanted or not wanted. Don’t confuse feelings with facts/science.


Quote:
Quote:
So, if someone says rape can be ok – are they wrong?

That depends on who you ask: it's not clear whose point of view you are enquiring about here, the "someone who thinks rape can be ok"'s view or Clownboat's?



Answering for myself, yes, if someone says rape can be ok – they are wrong.


Then you contradict your argument that the wrongness of rape is dependent upon the evaluator. Clearly you are here suggesting that the wrongness of rape is not dependent upon the evaluator, rather that if an evaluator says rape is ok – they are mistaken. You admit and advocate that rape is not ok and that no evaluator saying it is makes it so. In fact, you admit they are wrong for saying so.


Quote:
When you ask a rapist about the wrongness of rape, then that wrongness is dependent on whether the rapist thinks it is or not.


No. It. Isn’t. And you even admitted this in your previous response saying the rapist is wrong to believe that.

Quote:
Nothing was said by either of us would imply that the morality of rape or abortion is independent from the views of a person.


Might want to follow the logic. If you believe rape is wrong and anyone who doesn’t also believe rape is wrong is wrong then you are logically arguing that the wrongness of rape does not depend on the individual. The standard upon which you are making your evaluation is not dependent on what Rapist Roy thinks and rightly so.

I am amazed at how difficult this is for some to admit, even though they live it themselves. I think it comes down to the fear that we are all subject to external standards and that absolute truth exists. We don't like to be told we are wrong. Being able to pretend we can determine our own truth gives us the illusion of control. But true power and freedom comes in submitting to truth.

Goto top, bottom
View user's profile 
Post BBCode URL - Right click and save to clipboard to use later in post Post 125: Mon Dec 03, 2018 12:37 pm
Reply

Like this post
RightReason wrote:

Just out of curiosity how is a human being defined in the court?

I am no lawyer, google tells me it's based on some treatise dating back to the 12th century, called Leges Henrici Primi.

Quote:
But more importantly, is the law always right/good? Does the law determine morality?

No and no.

Quote:
Uuumm . . .that’s a little “I think, therefore I am” vague.

Well we are talking about personal taste after all, of course it's vague.

Quote:
It’s truly absurd to believe human value is dependent on the opinion of others or even oneself for that matter.

So what if you feel it's absurd? If you meant for this to be an argument, then it's an appeal to ridicule fallacy. If you actually meant logically absurd, then present an argument.

Quote:
I’m not sure why you can’t admit one human being does not get to determine the value of another human being – that the value is intrinsic in being human.

Because it's doesn't ring true. Why can't you admit one human does get to determine the value of another human being – that the value is extrinsic in being assigned by an evaluator?

Quote:
The even more mind boggling part is that I don’t even think you actually believe that. I think you can recognize that your child’s value does not come from what little Hitler in Germany thinks about your child. Your child’s value is intrinsic.

And what could possibly give you that impression? Certainly nothing I said would warrent such a claim. Let me be very explicit: My child has no intrinsic value; any and all value that my child has, is dependent of an evaluator, on what an evaluator thinks about my child.

You are getting very close to calling me a liar. Watch it.

Quote:
So again drawing your argument out to its logical conclusion -- the value of an African American is relative to the evaluator. He or she has no value independent of an outside evaluator?

No, I told you that explicitly last time you asked: He or she has no value independent of an evaluator, but it doesn't have to be an outside evaluator. See the difference? I even gave you an example - I said I value myself greatly, remember?

Quote:
And if the outside evaluator is a white supremacist, the African American is SOL Yeah that makes sense – NOT!

Whether this makes sense to you or not is moot, since value doesn't need to be assigned by an outside evaluator.

Quote:
The very same fetus at the very same stage of development’s value is not dependent on whether he/she is wanted or not wanted. Don’t confuse feelings with facts/science.

If it's a fact or science then prove it. This is the third time I've asked you to provide an argument, care to give it a go this time?

Quote:
Then you contradict your argument that the wrongness of rape is dependent upon the evaluator. Clearly you are here suggesting that the wrongness of rape is not dependent upon the evaluator, rather that if an evaluator says rape is ok – they are mistaken.

Where are you getting that from?! That's the very opposite of what I said, instead they are mistaken because an evaluator says rape is not ok.

Quote:
You admit and advocate that rape is not ok and that no evaluator saying it is makes it so. In fact, you admit they are wrong for saying so.

Incorrect. An evaluator saying it is makes it so, what I said was quite simple, there really wasn't much room for misinterpetation, read what I said carefully: rape is not ok because an evaluator said so, and saying it makes it so.

Quote:
No. It. Isn’t.

Prove. It.

Quote:
And you even admitted this in your previous response saying the rapist is wrong to believe that.

But I did no such thing. You've presented a strawman fallacy.

Quote:
Might want to follow the logic. If you believe rape is wrong and anyone who doesn’t also believe rape is wrong is wrong then you are logically arguing that the wrongness of rape does not depend on the individual.

You say follow the logic, but you've presented a non-sequitur fallacy. The conclusion that "I am arguing that the wrongness of rape does not depend on the individual" does not follow from the premise "I believe rape is wrong and anyone who doesn’t also believe rape is wrong is wrong."

Quote:
The standard upon which you are making your evaluation is not dependent on what Rapist Roy thinks and rightly so.

Right, but it does depend on what Bust Nak thinks and rightly so. I was quite explicit about that, why did it not register? IT DEPENDS ON AN EVALUATOR - ME.

Quote:
I am amazed at how difficult this is for some to admit, even though they live it themselves.

Well, you are simply incorrect, lets see if you can bring yourselve to admit it this time.

Goto top, bottom
View user's profile 
Post BBCode URL - Right click and save to clipboard to use later in post Post 126: Mon Dec 03, 2018 2:27 pm
Reply

Like this post
Clownboat wrote:


So personhood would seem to be conditional.

So I ask, does a human being, gah, really shouldn't use that word..
So I ask, does a fetus posses a mechanism for thought or awareness? Technically a human being, sure... (still lacks description though) but human person, not so much.

This is a slippery slope for sure and agree on the conditional nature of this definition.

I personally wouldn't subscribe to this definition of 'personhood' as it relegates all humans who haven't acquired language yet as "not people". Thankfully this can't be used in modern abortion laws or we would have inconvenient toddlers getting offed.

I would actually like to see a scientific definition used in the abortion arena. At least this way (good or bad) we can use a specific set of criteria rather than a wishy washy definition. Now, what should this definition be? I haven't a clue.

At the end of the day, we are deciding whether to terminate a human life form at some particular stage is 'legal' and perhaps also 'moral'. I think we need to be careful or we end up with a very easy way to get rid of the very young and the very old just because of inconvenience. Depending on the definition, it may also open the door to getting rid of all kinds of people with neurological disorders, diseases, etc. Where does it stop?

Goto top, bottom
View user's profile 
Post BBCode URL - Right click and save to clipboard to use later in post Post 127: Wed Dec 05, 2018 9:47 am
Reply

Like this post
[quote="RightReason"]
[Replying to post 121 by Clownboat]

Quote:
Quote:
It never fails . . . those with weak or no arguments can never acknowledge the wrongness of something.

Readers, please notice this empty claim and how how he failed to even referrence a weak argument that I have made.



Quote:
My comment was referencing your previous post when you said, “The value of an unwanted blastocyst/fetus is not the same value that we assign to a baby.” And this, “I would also argue that a 98 year old has more value than an unwanted blastocyst/fetus.” And this, “fetuses we should be giving our attention to saving, not the ones that are by definition 'unwanted'.”


Once again you failed to address the weakness of the points made. You should really try to do better than just calling them weak. What's next, name calling?
(Not that I think you will resort to such a thing, just pointing out the weakness of one position, that being claims of someone having a weak argument compared to name calling to try make a point).

Quote:
I’m afraid your views are based on opinion – not facts and science.

I certainly have views that are both opinion and fact. I believe the rest of humanity shares this trait with me.

Quote:
Let me ask you why does the human being in the womb has less value if the mother wants the fetus than if the mother does not want the fetus?

The answer is in the question.
Try asking the mothers. Ask the mother the value of the fetus she does not want to attempt to carry to term nor raise if it makes it to birth.

Then ask a mother the value of the fetus she does want, likely more than anything on the planet and compare the value or each. They will not be the same.

Quote:
Is the fetus different if he/she is wanted then if he/she is not?

Are you seriously asking if the fetus changes if it is wanted or not! Are you trolling or trying to drag me down to your level and beat me with experience?

Quote:
Does an unwanted fetus have less cells then a wanted fetus? Less DNA?

So trolling or dragging me down?

Quote:
Quote:
You literally end up with individuals incapable of saying things like . . . "Rape is always wrong" or "The developing human being in your womb has no value"

Readers, now watch how easily it is to destroy this nonsense:
Clownboat: "Rape is always wrong."
Clownboat: "A developing human being (not that this is a very accurate term) in a womb does have value."


Quote:
So, if someone says rape can be ok – are they wrong?

Depends. If we lived in a society that accepted rape as a normal practice, then it would be OK. We do not live in such a society though, so why are you asking such a question? Can we not stick to the world we live in please?

Quote:
You seem to be admitting the wrongness of rape is not dependent on whether the rapist thinks it is or not.

Rape is wrong because we as a society have deemed it to be such.
Imagine (now I have to discuss a world we don't live in) if we lived in a society where being raped was literally a compliment. In that type of world, rape would not be wrong. In fact, being raped would have value!

Quote:
It appears you recognize the illogic of thinking rape and or abortion are dependent on the views of a person.

You have this wrong. A person does not determine such a thing. Humans, living as a society do. In the past, sometime humans have even used claims made on behalf of god concepts in order to change society views. The gods are a powerful tool for the rulers!

Goto top, bottom
View user's profile 
Post BBCode URL - Right click and save to clipboard to use later in post Post 128: Wed Dec 05, 2018 10:15 am
Reply

Like this post
Quote:
This is a slippery slope for sure and agree on the conditional nature of this definition.

Not sure that I agree. Debating whether or not toddlers or old people should be removed from the womb is not a scenario that is possible to take place. We are discusing abortions, and abortions are the deliberate termination of a human pregnancy.

Quote:
I personally wouldn't subscribe to this definition of 'personhood' as it relegates all humans who haven't acquired language yet as "not people".

I don't agree because we can relay actions, experiences, and opinions without the ability to speak. Even new borns panic if you were to pretend to 'let them drop for a second'. That informs me that even a new born doesn't want the harm associated with falling. Their panic relays this.

Quote:
Thankfully this can't be used in modern abortion laws or we would have inconvenient toddlers getting offed.

A toddler in a vegitative state perhaps, but people just wanting to kill their toddlers, not so much. Either way, I challenge you to remove a toddler from a womb.

Quote:
I would actually like to see a scientific definition used in the abortion arena. At least this way (good or bad) we can use a specific set of criteria rather than a wishy washy definition. Now, what should this definition be? I haven't a clue.

That is a tough one, which is why I suggest discussing personhood and not whether something is human. My liver is human. My liver is not a human person.

Quote:
At the end of the day, we are deciding whether to terminate a human life form at some particular stage is 'legal' and perhaps also 'moral'. I think we need to be careful or we end up with a very easy way to get rid of the very young and the very old just because of inconvenience. Depending on the definition, it may also open the door to getting rid of all kinds of people with neurological disorders, diseases, etc. Where does it stop?

Good question, feel free to start a topic if you wish.

I don't personally see this as a slippery slope.
I don't like abortions personally, but I see them as necessary for some people.
I don't like killing toddlers nor the old like you mentioned and I don't see any necessity for removing them from a womb. Ever!

Perhaps I'm too optimistic?

Goto top, bottom
View user's profile 
Display posts from previous:   

Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13

Jump to:  
Facebook
Tweet

 




On The Web | Ecodia | Facebook | Twitter

Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group.   Produced by Ecodia.

Igloo   |  Lo-Fi Version