+ Reply to Thread
+ Post New Thread
Page 34 of 40 FirstFirst ... 24303132333435363738 ... LastLast
Results 331 to 340 of 396

Thread: Any lifer got the guts to debate me?

  1. Default

    Quote Originally Posted by l4zarus View Post
    That's reaching dude, reaching so far you're going to fall over...



    I'll agree both sides can be exaggerated. (I'm reminded of an idiot who claimed she had the right to abort right up til birth. NEWSFLASH everyone else: this is a lone nut and not representative of pro-choice positions).

    However since most pro-choice rhetoric is based on science, if "lifer" rhetoric is the polar opposite, that would imply it's based on something subjective like religion. In which case the whole subject is irrelevant legally, See SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE.

    Hows that for rhetoric?


    Oh and you gave me an idea for starting a thread....
    Science is basically amoral so I see how pro-aborters absolve themselves of any moral judgement. It is human to make judgements, that's how we have survived. Some judgements turn out good, some not so good. The passing along of strategies for a good, productive life is part of our heritage. Morality is one of these strategies. The ability to discern what is right and what is wrong. Science knows the mechanics of conception to child birth but has no answer for what life is.
    Last edited by RPA1; Feb 25 2012 at 08:36 PM.
    “Well, Doctor, what have we got—a Republic or a Monarchy?”

    “A Republic, if you can keep it.”

    Benjamin Franklin (1706–90)

  2. Default

    That is true. For one person, aborting a foetus because it has tested positive for Downs Syndrome is the right thing to do, yet for another person it's the wrong thing to do.

    Both people are making the correct choice.

  3. Default

    Quote Originally Posted by PatriotNews View Post
    Morality is not subject to popular opinion. It is not subject to change. It is a constant. It is not determined by logic, because what you consider logical, and what I consider logical, may be (and are in fact) two different things.
    Morality is determined by perception, and perception changes with the times and circumstances. We have to live in the time we're given.

    Abortion is immoral because it is the act of ending an otherwise healthy pregnancy and therefore the developing life of a human being.
    There is nothing particularly moral about being pregnant, so ending a pregnancy cannot be immoral. Ending the "developing life of a human being" would depend upon HOW developed, and whether society values that life at that stage greater than the desires of the pregnant woman.


    I'm sure that you wish to argue that I am wrong. You want to say that abortion is in fact moral. If this is true, then why don't we encourage more abortions?
    We don't encourage them through government actions because that is not a proper task of government. Government does not have the ability to determine right or wrong, it can only determine whether a particular action is beneficial to society or detrimental, and frankly, sometimes government is not even capable of that. We don't encourage more abortions because abortions are physically harder on a woman than birth control, so we prefer to see birth control used diligently. We also don't encourage more abortions because we see it as a personal decision for a woman, a decision that should be made according to HER own conscience.
    I went out to find a friend, but could not find one there. I went out to be a friend and friends were everywhere. (Unknown)

    Lewis Wolpert –The older people get, the older they believe 'old' to be.

  4. Default

    Quote Originally Posted by OKgrannie View Post
    Morality is determined by perception, and perception changes with the times and circumstances. We have to live in the time we're given.
    That's kind of interesting to hear an argument saying that from you, especially given that in other threads, you refer back to the past constantly to support your position, and even went so far as to bring up the prohibition of alcohol, which was in effect nearly an entire century ago.
    Quote Originally Posted by OKgrannie View Post
    There is nothing particularly moral about being pregnant, so ending a pregnancy cannot be immoral.
    Sure it can, if you're killing a human life to do so. Killing innocent lives is generally considered immoral by most.
    Quote Originally Posted by OKgrannie View Post
    Ending the "developing life of a human being" would depend upon HOW developed, and whether society values that life at that stage greater than the desires of the pregnant woman.
    Even if that were true, and I don't believe it is, how are you going to find out what "society" believes in that regard? Are you going to poll every single person in this "society?" No? Probably not, because that's all but impossible.
    Quote Originally Posted by OKgrannie View Post
    We don't encourage them through government actions because that is not a proper task of government.
    Since when has that ever stopped the government from acting on things which are "not a proper task of government?"
    Quote Originally Posted by OKgrannie View Post
    Government does not have the ability to determine right or wrong, it can only determine whether a particular action is beneficial to society or detrimental, and frankly, sometimes government is not even capable of that.
    Well of course not, I would venture to guess that when your position disagrees with something government has decided, you consider that to be a failure of government to do so.
    Quote Originally Posted by OKgrannie View Post
    We don't encourage more abortions because abortions are physically harder on a woman than birth control, so we prefer to see birth control used diligently. We also don't encourage more abortions because we see it as a personal decision for a woman, a decision that should be made according to HER own conscience.
    By encouraging the choice, you might as well be supporting abortion itself. By your own belief in another thread, if YOU KNOW something will or could result from your contributing to a decision or choice, then you are partially responsible for what results.
    Last edited by Locke9-05; Feb 26 2012 at 06:39 AM.
    "Rorschach's Journal. October 12th, 1985: Dog carcass in alley this morning, tire tread on burst stomach. This city is afraid of me. I have seen its true face. The streets are extended gutters and the gutters are full of blood and when the drains finally scab over, all the vermin will drown. The accumulated filth of all their sex and murder will foam up about their waists and all the whores and politicians will look up and shout 'Save us!' ... and I'll whisper 'no.'"

  5. Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mrlittlelawyer View Post
    A life which is human is not contained in a skin cell. It is contained inside a Zygote, small person, ect.
    What do you mean by "a life" .. such that a zygote is one and a zygote is not.

    What makes a zygote "a small person" ?


    I will answer both your questions.

    A living human is a being. An individual person. This being has a soul. Its body can be one cells to trillions upon trillions it matters not as long as the previous mentioned part is present.
    OK .. I get it. You believe in the Catholic concept of ensoulment - that a soul is in place at the moment of conception.

    I commend you for making a religious argument because I belive that most folks who are anti abortion are so because of religious belief.

    First thing we need to keep in mind is that this is a belief .. we really do not know what a soul even is or if such a thing exists.

    I do not like abortion much either but I find it hard to justify having the state make a law on the basis of "we really do not know". Especially when this law will force a woman to incur potential harm, loss of liberty, ans so on.

    That aside .. lets look at the claim of ensoulment from the perspective of whether or not it makes sense.

    Question: When the zygote divides creating two clones (A and B) where does the soul reside.

    Does the soul reside in A, in B, or is it spread out over A and B ?

    It does not matter which you choose there are problems in all three.

    Both A and B, as can all the first hundred or so cells, can individually create a new human.

    If 10 people are created from the offspring of the parent zygote .. do 9 of them not have souls or does each only have 1/10th of a soul ?


    I value my humanity for religious reason (and many others do) because i am made in the image of God and therefore set apart from animals in this regard and i am pleased as well as commanded to value this. Valuing your humanity though is not necessary to be human ,or to have the inalienable right to life
    How is the zygote in the image of God and another human cell not ?

    First off, from Genesis, it is the image of the Gods. "And God said, Let us
    make man in our image, after our likeness" Genesis 1:26

    Everything else that God creates in Genesis it is in the singular. God did this and God did that. When it comes to humans all of a sudden it is "US"

    In our image .. our likeness ? To me this means .. two arms, legs eyes .. and so forth. We could also say this means "from the same blueprint" which would refer to DNA.

    The zygote obviously is not in our likeness in any way other than DNA but this is true of every human cell.

  6. Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Locke9-05 View Post
    That's kind of interesting to hear an argument saying that from you, especially given that in other threads, you refer back to the past constantly to support your position, and even went so far as to bring up the prohibition of alcohol, which was in effect nearly an entire century ago.
    While we're living now, we should learn from the past. You know the saying, if you don't learn from the past, you're bound to repeat it. Abortion was illegal in the country before, we should learn from that. One thing we should learn from that is that laws won't deter it.

    Sure it can, if you're killing a human life to do so. Killing innocent lives is generally considered immoral by most.
    Unless they're "collateral damage."

    Even if that were true, and I don't believe it is, how are you going to find out what "society" believes in that regard? Are you going to poll every single person in this "society?" No? Probably not, because that's all but impossible.
    It's not difficult to tell what society believes in this country, but in this country, individuals are allowed to hold widely varying beliefs and to live their lives based on their own beliefs so long as they don't interfere with order in society.

    Since when has that ever stopped the government from acting on things which are "not a proper task of government?"
    You've got a point there! And absolutely right!

    Well of course not, I would venture to guess that when your position disagrees with something government has decided, you consider that to be a failure of government to do so.
    By encouraging the choice, you might as well be supporting abortion itself. By your own belief in another thread, if YOU KNOW something will or could result from your contributing to a decision or choice, then you are partially responsible for what results.
    If you mean by supporting legal abortion choice, I know that some women will choose abortion, yes, that pleases me. I also know that opposing abortion choice, still means that some women will choose abortion, but it will often be dangerous abortion, that does not please me.
    I went out to find a friend, but could not find one there. I went out to be a friend and friends were everywhere. (Unknown)

    Lewis Wolpert –The older people get, the older they believe 'old' to be.

  7. Default

    Quote Originally Posted by OKgrannie View Post
    While we're living now, we should learn from the past. You know the saying, if you don't learn from the past, you're bound to repeat it. Abortion was illegal in the country before, we should learn from that. One thing we should learn from that is that laws won't deter it.
    Why must your position continue repeating fallacious arguments? I'm just going to continue to swat them down. That "old saying" is anecdotal and has no bearing on logical thought process whatsoever. I've explained this countless times, just because for a period of time in the past, abortion laws were in place and abortion rates didn't change, that in no way leads logically to the conclusion that laws put in place in the present or future will always and forevermore result in the exact same outcome. That is a terribly fallacious line of reasoning. Again, I ask you: are you clairvoyant? Can you see into the conditional future? I think not, yet your arguments seem to suggest for a so-called "fact" that laws will never make a difference, when clearly, that argument is not logically valid.
    Quote Originally Posted by OKgrannie View Post
    Unless they're "collateral damage."
    "Collateral damage" is still considered immoral by most. The definition of "collateral damage" is:

    Collateral Damage - Dictionary.com

    Quote Originally Posted by Dictionary.com
    1. the killing of civilians in a military attack.
    2. any damage incidental to an activity.
    At best, I would say with a fair amount of certainty that some people believe collateral damage is a necessary evil or immorality in order to advance certain goals, but that doesn't mean they consider it "moral." It's still "immoral," they're just willing to accept it as part of whatever else is "gained."


    Quote Originally Posted by OKgrannie View Post
    It's not difficult to tell what society believes in this country, but in this country, individuals are allowed to hold widely varying beliefs and to live their lives based on their own beliefs so long as they don't interfere with order in society.
    It's not difficult to tell what society as a collective believes? Do you have the polling results including every member of society's opinion on this topic? Because I'd love to see them.
    Quote Originally Posted by OKgrannie View Post
    If you mean by supporting legal abortion choice, I know that some women will choose abortion, yes, that pleases me. I also know that opposing abortion choice, still means that some women will choose abortion, but it will often be dangerous abortion, that does not please me.
    It's their choice in both situations. They needn't choose dangerous abortion, they can choose medically assisted safe birth at a hospital. Then they can choose to give their child up for adoption, or another choice which does not result in the killing of an innocent life. Some women may choose abortion, some may not. It does not fall on anyone's shoulders other than theirs.
    Last edited by Locke9-05; Feb 26 2012 at 08:44 AM.
    "Rorschach's Journal. October 12th, 1985: Dog carcass in alley this morning, tire tread on burst stomach. This city is afraid of me. I have seen its true face. The streets are extended gutters and the gutters are full of blood and when the drains finally scab over, all the vermin will drown. The accumulated filth of all their sex and murder will foam up about their waists and all the whores and politicians will look up and shout 'Save us!' ... and I'll whisper 'no.'"

  8. Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Locke9-05 View Post
    Why must your position continue repeating fallacious arguments? I'm just going to continue to swat them down. That "old saying" is anecdotal and has no bearing on logical thought process whatsoever. I've explained this countless times, just because for a period of time in the past, abortion laws were in place and abortion rates didn't change, that in no way leads logically to the conclusion that laws put in place in the present or future will always and forevermore result in the exact same outcome. That is a terribly fallacious line of reasoning. Again, I ask you: are you clairvoyant? Can you see into the conditional future? I think not, yet your arguments seem to suggest for a so-called "fact" that laws will never make a difference, when clearly, that argument is not logically valid.
    The effects the laws had in the past is an indication of the effect they will have in the future. Human nature hasn't changed.

    "Collateral damage" is still considered immoral by most. The definition of "collateral damage" is:

    Collateral Damage - Dictionary.com



    At best, I would say with a fair amount of certainty that some people believe collateral damage is a necessary evil or immorality in order to advance certain goals, but that doesn't mean they consider it "moral." It's still "immoral," they're just willing to accept it as part of whatever else is "gained."
    So what you're saying is that people are willing to accept immorality if it suits their purposes?

    It's not difficult to tell what society as a collective believes? Do you have the polling results including every member of society's opinion on this topic? Because I'd love to see them.
    LOL, read the letters to the editor or a political forum, that will give you a good idea.

    It's their choice in both situations. They needn't choose dangerous abortion, they can choose medically assisted safe birth at a hospital. Then they can choose to give their child up for adoption, or another choice which does not result in the killing of an innocent life. Some women may choose abortion, some may not. It does not fall on anyone's shoulders other than theirs.
    It's easy enough to SAY it's their choice, but often people don't feel or think they do have a choice. Furthermore, many, even most, people don't believe in the value of an early "innocent life." People will make their decisions based on their own values, that's an independent trait highly valued since early days in our country.
    I went out to find a friend, but could not find one there. I went out to be a friend and friends were everywhere. (Unknown)

    Lewis Wolpert –The older people get, the older they believe 'old' to be.

  9. Default

    Quote Originally Posted by OKgrannie View Post
    The effects the laws had in the past is an indication of the effect they will have in the future. Human nature hasn't changed.
    Two fallacies in one. Your argument continues to bolster the appeal to history. The effects a certain and specific law and means of enforcing it have had or not had in the past is not a logical indication of how things will always and forever more turn out. Sorry. Your position is literally arguing against the principles of logic itself with that continued banter. Also, saying "human nature" hasn't changed is a form of the naturalistic logical fallacy and is therefore not a logical method of supporting one's argument. The term "human nature" is totally subjective in itself, to use it as support for an argument is just completely and utterly invalid.
    Quote Originally Posted by OKgrannie View Post
    So what you're saying is that people are willing to accept immorality if it suits their purposes?
    Sometimes, yes. But that in itself is wrong, unless their purpose serves a greater good, which abortion does not. It serves the systematic killing of innocent human life, which I don't even think pro-choice advocates would agree is a "good thing."
    Quote Originally Posted by OKgrannie View Post
    LOL, read the letters to the editor or a political forum, that will give you a good idea.
    It's not my job to support the farcical assertions your position stands by. If you think your views represent all of society, prove it. Otherwise, concede that your views may represent a portion of society and you are unable to quantify it objectively.
    Quote Originally Posted by OKgrannie View Post
    It's easy enough to SAY it's their choice, but often people don't feel or think they do have a choice.
    Their feeling like they don't have a choice is irrelevant. They do have one and their "feelings" aren't going to change that.
    Quote Originally Posted by OKgrannie View Post
    Furthermore, many, even most, people don't believe in the value of an early "innocent life." People will make their decisions based on their own values, that's an independent trait highly valued since early days in our country.
    Not when it includes the denial of rights to life and the systematic killing of innocent human life. Also, really, that last section of your argument which I just quoted is really nothing more than your opinion. How do you know what "many, even most" people do or do not believe in? Again, I challenge your position to support the assertions so carelessly thrown out on to the debate table.
    Last edited by Locke9-05; Feb 26 2012 at 10:34 AM.
    "Rorschach's Journal. October 12th, 1985: Dog carcass in alley this morning, tire tread on burst stomach. This city is afraid of me. I have seen its true face. The streets are extended gutters and the gutters are full of blood and when the drains finally scab over, all the vermin will drown. The accumulated filth of all their sex and murder will foam up about their waists and all the whores and politicians will look up and shout 'Save us!' ... and I'll whisper 'no.'"

  10. Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Locke9-05 View Post
    Two fallacies in one. Your argument continues to bolster the appeal to history. The effects a certain and specific law and means of enforcing it have had or not had in the past is not a logical indication of how things will always and forever more turn out. Sorry.
    You're wrong, how people reacted to a law in the past is an indication of how they will react again.

    Your position is literally arguing against the principles of logic itself with that continued banter. Also, saying "human nature" hasn't changed is a form of the naturalistic logical fallacy and is therefore not a logical method of supporting one's argument. The term "human nature" is totally subjective in itself, to use it as support for an argument is just completely and utterly invalid.
    Humans haven't changed, so their nature hasn't changed. How they reacted in the past is how they will react again.

    Sometimes, yes. But that in itself is wrong, unless their purpose serves a greater good, which abortion does not. It serves the systematic killing of innocent human life, which I don't even think pro-choice advocates would agree is a "good thing."
    It serves a greater good, that of freeing women.

    It's not my job to support the farcical assertions your position stands by. If you think your views represent all of society, prove it. Otherwise, concede that your views may represent a portion of society and you are unable to quantify it objectively.
    Of course my views are not 100% shared by all of society, but they are shared by a majority.

    Their feeling like they don't have a choice is irrelevant. They do have one and their "feelings" aren't going to change that.
    No, practically speaking, when people think they have no choice, they do have no choice. If they believe they must do something, they have no choice.

    Not when it includes the denial of rights to life and the systematic killing of innocent human life. Also, really, that last section of your argument which I just quoted is really nothing more than your opinion. How do you know what "many, even most" people do or do not believe in? Again, I challenge your position to support the assertions so carelessly thrown out on to the debate table.
    Polls repeatedly and consistently show that people want Roe vs. Wade to remain.
    I went out to find a friend, but could not find one there. I went out to be a friend and friends were everywhere. (Unknown)

    Lewis Wolpert –The older people get, the older they believe 'old' to be.

+ Reply to Thread
+ Post New Thread
Page 34 of 40 FirstFirst ... 24303132333435363738 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Give Obama credit, it took guts to do it.
    By Marine1 in forum Current Events
    Replies: 20
    Last Post: Jan 28 2012, 09:23 AM
  2. ANY lifer willing to debate me?
    By MegadethFan in forum Abortion
    Replies: 34
    Last Post: Sep 28 2011, 05:36 AM

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Bookmarks