Announcement

Collapse

Civics 101 Guidelines

Want to argue about politics? Healthcare reform? Taxes? Governments? You've come to the right place!

Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
See more
See less

Prager University on Abortion.

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Originally posted by Sea of red View Post
    Only problem is, personhood doesn't begin at conception. Such a definition that qualifies a fertilized egg as a human being no different than myself or a baby, is a purely philosophical idea at best, and a religious concept at worst. I see no reason to call a fertilized egg a human being any more than I see a reason to call a hickory nut a tree - or a call an egg chicken, or call a seed a flower. It's playing with words to call an embryo a human, and I'm not a "ghoul" because I won't accept what is an obviously religious concept.
    Please demonstrate the flaw in the following argument:

    P1: At the moment of conception, an organism is created which meets even a strict scientific definition of life.
    P2: This organism has human DNA.
    P3: This organism is guilty of no wrong-doing.
    P4: Laws exist to protect the innocent in our society.
    C: Therefore, at the moment of conception, an innocent human life is created (P1 - P3) which deserves every protection afforded by the law (P4).

    As for women who become pregnant as a result of rape, you'll have to explain what line of reasoning gets you from "the woman was raped" to "therefore, she should be allowed to murder her unborn child", because I really don't see how those dots connect. A fetus that is conceived as a result of rape is still an innocent human life, so on what grounds does it deserve death? That's a bit like sending a child to prison when his parents commit a crime. It doesn't make sense.
    Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
    But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
    Than a fool in the eyes of God


    From "Fools Gold" by Petra

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by Sea of red View Post
      But there you go. The hickory nut is a tree yet, or an egg a chicken yet. These things are not made to progress. They are opportunistic organisms that given the right conditions, will develop into higher organisms. We cut down trees, we eat animals, we kill innocent people in war as collateral damage.
      But there you go. The hickory nut and the egg AND the human embryo contain the essence of what they will be if left to develop.

      We cut down trees, we eat animals, and we murder unborn children as a result of runaway sexual immorality.

      Two out of three are okay to do. The third one is not.


      Securely anchored to the Rock amid every storm of trial, testing or tribulation.

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
        P1: At the moment of conception, an organism is created which meets even a strict scientific definition of life.
        Sure. No problem yet.

        P2: This organism has human DNA.
        Agreed.

        P3: This organism is guilty of no wrong-doing.
        Well, that's kinda obvious. It's like saying a "virus" is guilty of no wrong doing. It not only lacks the ability to commit such an act, it lacks even the most basic bodily organs, and neurological signs; at the point of most abortions the fetus can't even feel pain. That's a pretty big difference.

        P4: Laws exist to protect the innocent in our society.
        Not highly undeveloped organisms that are hosts that lacks any neurological signs.


        As for women who become pregnant as a result of rape, you'll have to explain what line of reasoning gets you from "the woman was raped" to "therefore, she should be allowed to murder her unborn child", because I really don't see how those dots connect. A fetus that is conceived as a result of rape is still an innocent human life, so on what grounds does it deserve death? That's a bit like sending a child to prison when his parents commit a crime. It doesn't make sense.
        Death? Destruction is more like it. Death implies the thing was ever really alive to begin with. The fetus in the first trimester has less life than people that we declare clinically dead.

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by mossrose View Post
          But there you go. The hickory nut and the egg AND the human embryo contain the essence of what they will be if left to develop.

          We cut down trees, we eat animals, and we murder unborn children as a result of runaway sexual immorality.

          Two out of three are okay to do. The third one is not.
          Why do you get to eat animals? Don't you care about life?

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by Sea of red View Post
            Only problem is, personhood doesn't begin at conception. Such a definition that qualifies a fertilized egg as a human being no different than myself or a baby, is a purely philosophical idea at best, and a religious concept at worst. I see no reason to call a fertilized egg a human being any more than I see a reason to call a hickory nut a tree - or a call an egg chicken, or call a seed a flower. It's playing with words to call an embryo a human, and I'm not a "ghoul" because I won't accept what is an obviously religious concept.
            No.The real problem is that personhood is an artificial, arbitrary legal construct that Blackmon created out of thin air. It is legal and scientific garbage.

            Your analogy doesn't work. Acorn or tree only describes stage of life. Both acorn and tree are oaks. In the same way that adult and zygote are both human beings. No stage of human development has a monopoly on the title human being. That the stages of development differ does not intrinsically grant greater right to live for one over the other.

            One more thing. Your second post mentions rape. It's a myth that abortion is necessarily better for the victim in the rare occurance of rape resulting in pregnancy. Abortion can in fact be even more devastating than the rape itself. Even if that were not true it is not a justification for killing the child.

            Either way there are far better ways to help a rape victim than by subjecting her to the turmoil of deciding to Kill her child and worse, going through the process.
            "He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain that which he cannot lose." - Jim Elliot

            "Forgiveness is the way of love." Gary Chapman

            My Personal Blog

            My Novella blog (Current Novella Begins on 7/25/14)

            Quill Sword

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by Sea of red View Post
              Why do you get to eat animals? Don't you care about life?
              Christian, not bhuddist. Wrong theology. Wrong argument as well.
              "He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain that which he cannot lose." - Jim Elliot

              "Forgiveness is the way of love." Gary Chapman

              My Personal Blog

              My Novella blog (Current Novella Begins on 7/25/14)

              Quill Sword

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by Sea of red View Post
                Why do you get to eat animals? Don't you care about life?


                Securely anchored to the Rock amid every storm of trial, testing or tribulation.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by Sea of red View Post
                  Why do you get to eat animals? Don't you care about life?
                  Haven't we already been though this strawman James? You're misrepresenting the arguments of your opponents because you want it to be easier to refute. Sorry, but there simply is no reason to assign animals the same value as humans and I doubt you can give a good reason why.

                  Answer my question now:

                  Why isn't it illegal to rip the face of a 'fetus' apart, while the heart is still beating, to extract the brain, but people make a big deal about a lion getting shot?

                  I'd love to hear your response to that one.
                  "The man from the yacht thought he was the first to find England; I thought I was the first to find Europe. I did try to found a heresy of my own; and when I had put the last touches to it, I discovered that it was orthodoxy."
                  GK Chesterton; Orthodoxy

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by Sea of braindead View Post
                    Sure. No problem yet.


                    Agreed.


                    Well, that's kinda obvious. It's like saying a "virus" is guilty of no wrong doing. It not only lacks the ability to commit such an act, it lacks even the most basic bodily organs, and neurological signs; at the point of most abortions the fetus can't even feel pain. That's a pretty big difference.


                    Not highly undeveloped organisms that are hosts that lacks any neurological signs.



                    Death? Destruction is more like it. Death implies the thing was ever really alive to begin with. The fetus in the first trimester has less life than people that we declare clinically dead.
                    You're probably too clueless to realize it, but you never actually showed my argument to be unsound or invalid. You readily accepted the first two premises then objected to the third with a non-sequitur (I still can't figure out why you think a fetus' ability to feel pain is somehow relevant to its quality of being innocent); and your objection to my fourth premise is a begged question and special pleading rolled into one. Either innocent human life should be protected by law or it shouldn't. You can't say, "Yes, but...!" without committing a logical fallacy.

                    Furthermore, I find your claim that "Death implies the thing was ever really alive to begin with" odd when you readily conceded that at the moment of conception, a fetus meets even a strict scientific definition of life, so how can something be scientifically classified as a living organism but not actually be alive? And saying that a fetus is less alive than a clinically dead human being doesn't sound right, either, since a healthy fetus is a living, developing organism that will grow into a living, breathing, thinking, feeling human being if its development is not interferred with while a clinically dead human being is at the opposite end of that life cycle.
                    Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
                    But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
                    Than a fool in the eyes of God


                    From "Fools Gold" by Petra

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by Teallaura View Post
                      No.The real problem is that personhood is an artificial, arbitrary legal construct that Blackmon created out of thin air. It is legal and scientific garbage.

                      Your analogy doesn't work. Acorn or tree only describes stage of life. Both acorn and tree are oaks. In the same way that adult and zygote are both human beings. No stage of human development has a monopoly on the title human being. That the stages of development differ does not intrinsically grant greater right to live for one over the other.

                      One more thing. Your second post mentions rape. It's a myth that abortion is necessarily better for the victim in the rare occurance of rape resulting in pregnancy. Abortion can in fact be even more devastating than the rape itself. Even if that were not true it is not a justification for killing the child.

                      Either way there are far better ways to help a rape victim than by subjecting her to the turmoil of deciding to Kill her child and worse, going through the process.
                      I know a women who was raped and took a rather nasty beating too. She currently has that daughter and cares for her daughter a great deal. While rape is a horrible thing and rapist should be put onto trial and face the max punishments the law can give them; killing your child doesn't seem to be the answer to heal from a rape.
                      "The man from the yacht thought he was the first to find England; I thought I was the first to find Europe. I did try to found a heresy of my own; and when I had put the last touches to it, I discovered that it was orthodoxy."
                      GK Chesterton; Orthodoxy

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by Teallaura View Post
                        ]No.The real problem is that personhood is an artificial, arbitrary legal construct that Blackmon created out of thin air. It is legal and scientific garbage.
                        Then we do pro-life groups use the term?

                        Your analogy doesn't work. Acorn or tree only describes stage of life. Both acorn and tree are oaks.
                        Ummm... no. Acorns are fruiting structures that contain a seed inside the fruit, while oaks are trees that contain a cambium, sapwood, phloem, root structure, and leaf population.

                        In the same way that adult and zygote are both human beings.
                        Zygotes lack a nervous system, vital organs, or brain. It has no consciences, immune system, or even the basic of vital signs.

                        No stage of human development has a monopoly on the title human being.
                        Lacking any neurology at all= not a human being. It's why people get declared clinically dead when their brain waves cease. No intrinsic difference between this a zygote I'm afraid.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by MethMouth Man View Post
                          You're probably too clueless to realize it, but you never actually showed my argument to be unsound or invalid. You readily accepted the first two premises then objected to the third with a non-sequitur (I still can't figure out why you think a fetus' ability to feel pain is somehow relevant to its quality of being innocent); and your objection to my fourth premise is a begged question and special pleading rolled into one. Either innocent human life should be protected by law or it shouldn't. You can't say, "Yes, but...!" without committing a logical fallacy.

                          Furthermore, I find your claim that "Death implies the thing was ever really alive to begin with" odd when you readily conceded that at the moment of conception, a fetus meets even a strict scientific definition of life, so how can something be scientifically classified as a living organism but not actually be alive? And saying that a fetus is less alive than a clinically dead human being doesn't sound right, either, since a healthy fetus is a living, developing organism that will grow into a living, breathing, thinking, feeling human being if its development is not interferred with while a clinically dead human being is at the opposite end of that life cycle.
                          If you have no heart, lungs, kidneys, skin, or brain it's kind of hard to define that as a human being. I don't see how it follows that human DNA is the same as a human being. DNA is simply the information that is necessary for a human being to develop - not a human being itself. But you already knew that didn't you, retard?

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Originally posted by Sea of red View Post
                            More than a few women are drugged, beaten, or attacked before being raped. Incest is also a very common occurrence out there and due to it's taboo nature, women naturally are afraid to discuss such a circumstance. Rape is an awful thing to go through man or women. Being told you must give birth to a child simply because some people have a religious concept that absurdly gives such an organism legal rights superseding that of the womans.
                            This is still not part of the vast majority of pregnancies. It is a smoke screen. If a woman does not claim rape until she knows she is pregnant she is probably not telling the truth.
                            Micah 6:8 He has told you, O man, what is good; and what does the LORD require of you but to do justice, and to love kindness, and to walk humbly with your God?

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Originally posted by Sea of red View Post
                              Only problem is, personhood doesn't begin at conception. Such a definition that qualifies a fertilized egg as a human being no different than myself or a baby, is a purely philosophical idea at best, and a religious concept at worst. I see no reason to call a fertilized egg a human being any more than I see a reason to call a hickory nut a tree - or a call an egg chicken, or call a seed a flower. It's playing with words to call an embryo a human, and I'm not a "ghoul" because I won't accept what is an obviously religious concept.
                              I do not claim a fertilized egg is a person until implantation. Just as I do not claim a seed is a plant until it sprouts.
                              Micah 6:8 He has told you, O man, what is good; and what does the LORD require of you but to do justice, and to love kindness, and to walk humbly with your God?

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Originally posted by Sea of red View Post
                                Then we do pro-life groups use the term?
                                Because pro abortionists pushed the concept to try to justify abortion.

                                Originally posted by Sea of red View Post
                                Ummm... no. Acorns are fruiting structures that contain a seed inside the fruit, while oaks are trees that contain a cambium, sapwood, phloem, root structure, and leaf population.
                                No! The blossom is the fruiting structure. The acorn is the fertilized ovum the first stage of the oak tree.

                                Originally posted by Sea of red View Post
                                Zygotes lack a nervous system, vital organs, or brain. It has no consciences, immune system, or even the basic of vital signs.
                                This is just a red herring. No one here claimed that a zygote has any of those things at its earliest stage of development.

                                Originally posted by Sea of red View Post
                                Lacking any neurology at all= not a human being. It's why people get declared clinically dead when their brain waves cease. No intrinsic difference between this a zygote I'm afraid.
                                This is simply a claim and has no evidential value. You are simply restating your support for abortion.
                                Micah 6:8 He has told you, O man, what is good; and what does the LORD require of you but to do justice, and to love kindness, and to walk humbly with your God?

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by little_monkey, Yesterday, 04:19 PM
                                16 responses
                                78 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Mountain Man  
                                Started by whag, 03-26-2024, 04:38 PM
                                52 responses
                                276 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Mountain Man  
                                Started by rogue06, 03-26-2024, 11:45 AM
                                25 responses
                                109 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post rogue06
                                by rogue06
                                 
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 09:21 AM
                                33 responses
                                195 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Roy
                                by Roy
                                 
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 08:34 AM
                                83 responses
                                353 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Sparko
                                by Sparko
                                 
                                Working...
                                X