Any lifer got the guts to debate me?

Discussion in 'Abortion' started by MegadethFan, Feb 15, 2012.

  1. Locke9-05

    Locke9-05 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 26, 2008
    Messages:
    4,450
    Likes Received:
    34
    Trophy Points:
    48
    You didn't emphasize the word "perhaps" in there. Perhaps is a way of saying "maybe" or "possibly." That tempered the exaggeration.

    "Lifer" rhetoric is really just the polar opposite of "pro-choice" rhetoric. Both sides use equally exaggerated arguments.
     
  2. l4zarus

    l4zarus Member

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2012
    Messages:
    886
    Likes Received:
    20
    Trophy Points:
    18
    That's reaching dude, reaching so far you're going to fall over...:-D

    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? :p

    Oh and you gave me an idea for starting a thread....
     
  3. Locke9-05

    Locke9-05 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 26, 2008
    Messages:
    4,450
    Likes Received:
    34
    Trophy Points:
    48
    That's absurd. Pro-choice and pro-life positions are both based on different views of morality. Pro-choice is not based on science at all, because science has no ability to determine when a human life is a "person" or what kind of human life is a "person," which is what is at the crux of this debate. Personhood is the primary thing being debated in these topics. Science will not and cannot define that. To make the claim that "pro-choice rhetoric is based on science" is nothing short of ignorant narcissism. It is no more based on objective science than the pro-life position.
     
    PatriotNews and (deleted member) like this.
  4. Mrlittlelawyer

    Mrlittlelawyer Member

    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2011
    Messages:
    317
    Likes Received:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    18
    A life which is human is not contained in a skin cell. It is contained inside a Zygote, small person, ect.

    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.

    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.
     
    PatriotNews and (deleted member) like this.
  5. PatriotNews

    PatriotNews Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 20, 2008
    Messages:
    27,756
    Likes Received:
    3,715
    Trophy Points:
    113
    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.

    Abortion is immoral because it is the act of ending an otherwise healthy pregnancy and therefore the developing life of a human being.

    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?
     
  6. RPA1

    RPA1 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Aug 22, 2009
    Messages:
    22,806
    Likes Received:
    1,269
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    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.
     
  7. diamond lil

    diamond lil Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2010
    Messages:
    1,760
    Likes Received:
    180
    Trophy Points:
    63
    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.
     
  8. OKgrannie

    OKgrannie Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2008
    Messages:
    10,923
    Likes Received:
    130
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Morality is determined by perception, and perception changes with the times and circumstances. We have to live in the time we're given.

    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.


    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.
     
  9. Locke9-05

    Locke9-05 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 26, 2008
    Messages:
    4,450
    Likes Received:
    34
    Trophy Points:
    48
    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.
    Sure it can, if you're killing a human life to do so. Killing innocent lives is generally considered immoral by most.
    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.
    Since when has that ever stopped the government from acting on things which are "not a proper task of government?"
    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. :rolleyes:
    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.
     
  10. Giftedone

    Giftedone Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2010
    Messages:
    63,708
    Likes Received:
    13,464
    Trophy Points:
    113
    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" ?


    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 ?


    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.
     
  11. OKgrannie

    OKgrannie Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2008
    Messages:
    10,923
    Likes Received:
    130
    Trophy Points:
    63
    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.

    Unless they're "collateral damage."

    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.

    You've got a point there! And absolutely right!

    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.
     
  12. Locke9-05

    Locke9-05 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 26, 2008
    Messages:
    4,450
    Likes Received:
    34
    Trophy Points:
    48
    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.
    "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."


    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.
    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.
     
  13. OKgrannie

    OKgrannie Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2008
    Messages:
    10,923
    Likes Received:
    130
    Trophy Points:
    63
    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.

    So what you're saying is that people are willing to accept immorality if it suits their purposes?

    LOL, read the letters to the editor or a political forum, that will give you a good idea.

    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.
     
  14. Locke9-05

    Locke9-05 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 26, 2008
    Messages:
    4,450
    Likes Received:
    34
    Trophy Points:
    48
    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.
    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'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.
    Their feeling like they don't have a choice is irrelevant. They do have one and their "feelings" aren't going to change that.
    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.
     
  15. OKgrannie

    OKgrannie Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2008
    Messages:
    10,923
    Likes Received:
    130
    Trophy Points:
    63
    You're wrong, how people reacted to a law in the past is an indication of how they will react again.

    Humans haven't changed, so their nature hasn't changed. How they reacted in the past is how they will react again.

    It serves a greater good, that of freeing women.

    Of course my views are not 100% shared by all of society, but they are shared by a majority.

    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.

    Polls repeatedly and consistently show that people want Roe vs. Wade to remain.
     
  16. Locke9-05

    Locke9-05 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 26, 2008
    Messages:
    4,450
    Likes Received:
    34
    Trophy Points:
    48
    That's funny, ad hominem. Sorry, but actually your argument is wrong.

    Appeal to History Logical Fallacy

    You cannot see the future, you cannot logically make absolute predictions of what will happen in the conditional future. You can use the past as a guide and cautiously speculate that you personally don't believe it will do much good, at least not if laws are enforced the same way they were in the past, but your arguments aren't doing that. Your arguments are not cautious about using the past as a guide, your arguments make the absolute predictive clairvoyant-like statements that "it will never work." That is a fallacy. Once again, you have now passed up on disagreeing with me, now you are blatantly disagreeing with the fundamental principles of logic, which have existed for thousands of years. Congratulations. I've only met one other person in my life who was willing to completely deny the principles of logic in order to further their argument in a debate. Your position has also reverted to a very childish stage of outright denial and pushing forward. Your position has been utterly defeated in terms of this specific line of logic, so your argument is just to say "you're wrong," and continue spouting the fallacy as if that will make it valid. Newsflash: it won't.
    The idea of "human nature" is subjective and the term "human nature" is a misnomer, because as we are all unique and have different views, etc., there cannot be one "nature" applied across the board to all humans on this planet. At least not logically so. Also, appealing to something like human nature, even if it weren't a misnomer, is still a form of the naturalistic logical fallacy.
    Not when they don't need "freeing." They're "freeing" themselves from their own personal accountability and responsibility by terminating their "mistake." It's like an easy "undo" command for something that the woman obviously shouldn't have done in the first place and it kills an innocent human life in the process. If you don't want to get pregnant, logic says don't engage in sexual intercourse. Just like the male counterpart of that is if you don't want to be responsible for child support, don't engage in sexual intercourse. End of story. Personal responsibility says if you engage in sexual intercourse, you may get pregnant and it's based on a choice you made willingly. No one needs to be "freed" from something like that.
    Three fallacies in one day? Is that a new record, perhaps? That's the argumentum ad populum, more commonly known as the appeal to majority logical fallacy. Even if you could prove that the majority agrees with you--and you can't, because that would still require interviewing a lot of individuals (specifically more than 50 percent of all members of society)--appealing to a majority view is logically fallacious. You can't prove that the "majority" agrees with you and even if you could, that doesn't make your view correct.
    So we're going to discuss "practically" now? Forgive me if I find that hard to believe, considering I've spent my time on this forum in the last few days refuting fallacy after repeated fallacy coming from your position. I don't know that I would necessarily call your position's "practicality" a very objective practicality. Also, what people think is irrelevant. The actuality is what's important. There is always a choice and people need to remember that. If they don't remember that, they have no one to blame but themselves.
    "People." Would this be "all people?" Would this be the "majority" of people you were so adamantly claiming were on your side? Even if it were, It's not an objective measurement of every contributing member of society. And even if you were somehow able to verify the opinion of every contributing member of society and even in the event that they did all agree with you on being pro-choice, it would still be logically fallacious to make the conclusion that your arguments are more valid or correct than others because of that. Sorry.

    Just FYI, though, despite the fact that it doesn't matter, your so-called "majority opinion" is actually the new minority opinion as of the last few years:

    Poll: Majority of Americans Say They’re Pro-Life on Abortion

     
  17. Mrlittlelawyer

    Mrlittlelawyer Member

    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2011
    Messages:
    317
    Likes Received:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    18
    A small person? What I mean by that is an individual.

    Thank you. People like you who commend someone for making a religious stand is something I like. Actually though I am Reformed Presbyterian , but that doesn't change the fact that I believe there is a soul there. I like my religion and the morality based in religion because its a constant as long as we try to keep it that way. Otherwise morality changes with the times which can lead anywhere and I seriously don't like anarchy.I am not scared of something new. I just don't like it.

    That is why my churches motto is "By grace alone, through FAITH alone, in Christ alone" that is exactly what it is, faith.

    I can understand that entirely. I would hate it that someone would be robbed of any rights, but that situation you just mentioned (not stripping her of her rights) is vice versa.

    The last question is interesting but my argument could be that they are all there in that first cell till the tenth person is there. Like in the case of conjoined twins. This may result in my changing my opinion. You have provided a fairly good argument.
    This is an interesting question but makes more sense when you look at my analogy of me stabbing you. The soul doesn't really "reside" in any part of the body it is just there. You could cut off my arm and that isn't me, or my legs and that isn't me, but say you cut out my heart? Well you killed me but is my soul in my heart? Well then it would have to be in my blood ,or my lungs? No the soul is in the body, but not any specific part. You can't take part of my soul when you cut off my arm? No. You can't slice a spirit in half can you? No because they aren't mortal knife is worthless weapon against them. The soul dwells in the body, but you can't say a specific part of the body is the soul. Read on a bit.

    "US" refers to the trinity and is one of the Old Testament examples. Father,Son, and Holy Ghost, three persons one God.
    We are like God because we are spirits or we have a soul. I believe this is a simple way of answering this. Being spirits we are also eternal, sure the body may die, but our soul is never gone. Originally our bodies were also eternal but, that has since changed.
     
  18. PatriotNews

    PatriotNews Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 20, 2008
    Messages:
    27,756
    Likes Received:
    3,715
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Perception may change with the times and circumstances, but morality remains unchangedeven by perception. For example, we used to have slavery in this country. Those who owned slaves may have believed that there was nothing morally wrong with that. Now most would agree that slavery is a moral wrong that will taint the history of this country forever. Or, are we to believe that it is not a wrong that was committed because back in those days it was moral, therefore it was right?

    I can think of no higher moral endeavor than that of giving life to another human being. When any society no longer values life, it loses any claim to moral authority.

    We do encourage them through the government depending on who is in charge of the government. President Obama stance on abortion:


     
  19. Giftedone

    Giftedone Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2010
    Messages:
    63,708
    Likes Received:
    13,464
    Trophy Points:
    113
    It is not a small person .. In order to be a person, regardless of size, it has to be a Homo Sapien and the zygote is not from a Science perspective.

    The second perspective "it is a person because it has a soul" is a claim that can not be proven so we do not know for sure when the soul arises or if there is one to begin with.

    Because the zygote is not a Homo sapien and we do not know if it has a soul or not it has no rights. Or at least there has yet to be an valid argument that it should have rights over the rights of the woman.


    I do not see how this argument relates. In your instance you are talking about one soul that inhabits the body.

    In the argument I make we have to justify 10 or more souls in the same body.


    "US" does not refer to the Trinity. We can not say for sure if the concept was around at the time .. it is doubtfull but it could have been.

    Regardless .. Hebrew folk do not believe in the Trinity .. and if they would have meant that they would have referred to "US" whenever God made something.

    Clearly we are not in the image and likeness of the Holy Spirit.

    The trinity .. as we know it .. "that Jesus was God" was not even believed by the early Christians.

    When Tertullian started spreading this concept around 200 AD it was condemned as heresy.

    Early Church Fathers believed that Jesus was subordinate to God and not of the same substance.

    To the Greeks there were two types of substances .. that which God was made of and that which everything else was made of.

    It was Constantine that dictated the Trinity to the Church in the fourth century and he did this for political reasons.
     
  20. Mrlittlelawyer

    Mrlittlelawyer Member

    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2011
    Messages:
    317
    Likes Received:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Latin may be a useful language for science (and law for that matter) but for the sake of public debate the term "human" would work fine.

    Another important point is that science does not rule our lives. And does not define the morals or laws of humanity. I personally don't like the idea of another Unit 731. "Science" trying to do that can go to hell.

    have you not read the United States Declaration of Independence? For that matter John Locke? The right to life is inalienable and one persons right cannot take priority over another. The woman would choose to have the child in the act of sex. Under rape take it like this, a murderer kills someone, did that someone decide to die? No. The consequence is there, when one person decided to take another persons inalienable right. John Locke wrote some interesting things such as civil interests regarding the things we are discussing such "life and the indolence of body" and the "consciousness" of man. Not substance such as body, DNA, or soul. I attribute the consciousness of man with his soul not in reference to the soul as its substance, but what it does in reference to a mans consciousness. A zygote may have a consciousness and indeed be self aware. There is no way which we can determine this though and so its left to possible ugly uncertainty.

    As to the religious aspect I could answer but after the forum logged me out I lost my post. Besides that wanders far from the topic.

    The more I read regarding this topic the more I realize that its an opinion of BELIEFS, not science or fact. It can never be solved because everything falls quickly to uncertainty.
     
  21. Giftedone

    Giftedone Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2010
    Messages:
    63,708
    Likes Received:
    13,464
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I like Locke .. he had some interesting ideas and I used his material for Poly Sci papers I wrote.

    Locke did note extend inalienable rights to a zygote, or a fetus, and nor does the declaration of independence, or the Constitution, or the Bill of Rights.

    I agree with you that a zygote may indeed have a kind of consciousness and is perhaps self aware but this is not like the self consciousness or self awareness of a born human.

    A cow is far more advanced and self aware and we eat them.

    There is no reason to believe, and every reason to doubt, that the zygote is any more self aware then the numerous cells that come after the zygote.

    If the zygote is self aware this self awareness does not last very long because the parent zygote dissappears shorly after conception.

    Perhaps the two daughter cells formed which are each capable of forming a human are self aware and the numerous cells that come after to form the blastocyst.

    Unfortunately these cells do not get to survive very long either as the blastocyst goes on to become the placenta which is discarded "after birth".

    This is both science and fact.

    At the end of the day the best position one can come up with is "It seems 99.999% likely that the zygote does not have feelings and human like consciousness but it is hard to be 100% sure.

    Then comes the question of how to value "It is really unlikely but I dont know for sure" against something we know for an absolute fact.

    It is an absolute fact that Locke attributed inalienable rights to a living breathing woman.

    If you were to say to Locke is "It is really unlikely but I dont know for sure" sufficient to overide the inalienable rights of a woman ?

    On the one hand we have something that extremely difficult to value, against the tremendous value that humanity (particularly in the US) puts on freedom of the individual... life, liberty and the persuit of happiness.

    If we argue that we can restrict or take away these rights based on "I dont know" .. then these rights are degraded and will soon have little value.
     
  22. Blasphemer

    Blasphemer Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 2, 2011
    Messages:
    2,404
    Likes Received:
    53
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Nope, we can determine it . According to science, mind is the product of neural networks in the functioning brain cortex. If there is no functioning brain cortex (brain waves), there can be no mind. Since brain waves appear in the 5th month, fetuses in the first trimester cannot have a mind.
     
  23. Mrlittlelawyer

    Mrlittlelawyer Member

    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2011
    Messages:
    317
    Likes Received:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    18
    LOL the consciousness of the mind does not necessarily reside in the mind. I think Locke did put it well when he wrote on the difference in every human is not substance put of conscience.
     
  24. Mrlittlelawyer

    Mrlittlelawyer Member

    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2011
    Messages:
    317
    Likes Received:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Are you an atheist? Please just answer.

    The Declaration, Constitution, and the Bill of rights do not have specific lines reading that indeed these rights are extended to the unborn this doesn't mean they are not included. Its a question that interests me whether or not ,if we could, going back and telling them there would be a process call abortion of pregnancy, if they would have changed that or done nothing at all. That is off the topic though.

    What you have just given IS science and fact. Losing cells was pointed out by you earlier as something that happens and doesn't kill you. I am probably losing cells as I type this message. So a zygote turning into a blastocyst loses cells in the process, but that doesn't mean it is dying over and over again. You still base this on substance.

    Science and fact? What the hell do I care? I already explained if science rules our inalienable rights or the decisions in law I seriously don't care about it anymore. Truth isn't based on science. If it were then we would have a Unit 731 or worse.

    If we argue that we can make laws when we are 99.999% sure then this country can burn for all I care. I would give all freedom to every individual the world would be turned upside down. If we argue that a woman's rights can possibly take the priority over another. This is a disgrace. If we argue that a woman has the right to have sex, knowing full the possible consequences, knowing full the absolute of what sex was for in the first place, and then we say that she can escape these natural consequences when she CHOSE for them to come? Rape you might ask? The murdered doesn't choose to be murdered, but they are dead aren't they? The raped don't choose to be raped, but they must accept those consequences involved. BTW The murdered are already dead I am not saying that if someone is attacked we just let them die.

    On an unsure truth the world could hang in balance, ever thought that? I don't think its this one, there are certain things though man might never know till he is dead even then I can only believe this. The problem is this, that a threat to justice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere* even the slightest threat. Lastly I would like to mention that we are not putting up one right against another, they are all equal and inalienable you can't weigh one above the other or take one away in favor of another. A woman has the right to her body she chooses to have sex, she does not have the right over another persons body.
     
  25. Blasphemer

    Blasphemer Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 2, 2011
    Messages:
    2,404
    Likes Received:
    53
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Consciousness is a state of mind.

    Your second sentence is unparsable.
     

Share This Page