|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,909 Year: 4,166/9,624 Month: 1,037/974 Week: 364/286 Day: 7/13 Hour: 2/2 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Evangelical Switch from Pro-choice to Anti-abortion | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 441 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Faith writes:
The point is that you're not thinking of it as a human life. That's just rhetoric. You're actually think of it as second class. We have to argue that it is a human life because it is hidden from view and that is the only reason. It's like saying something is "valuable" but not being willing to pay for it. I'll remind you again that I am not in favour of abortion. But you have to understand the implications of your own position before you can go declaring to everybody else what is "moral".And our geese will blot out the sun.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 441 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Faith writes:
Ever hear of equality? Should we go back to treating women as second class? Black people? People who follow the "wrong" religion? Maybe we should measure humanity on a scale of 1 to 10. So what if we think of it as "second class?" It's still a human life even if we give it a lower legal status. We've been trying to improve our idea of equality (except for the Trump supporters who are already perfect). Now you want to go backward?
Faith writes:
Moral issues are muddy. You're best off keeping your own morality in your own pants. And by the way it was Tangle who said it is a moral issue.And our geese will blot out the sun.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 441 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Faith writes:
The unborn child doesn't have legal status as a human being because it isn't considered a human being. Human being is an either/or proposition. Either it's human or it isn't. There's no "human enough to not be terminated" but "not human enough to punish the person who terminates it".
I thought YOU were pointing out that the unborn child does not have equal legal status as a human being.... Faith writes:
But you're not arguing that it's a human life. You're arguing that it's kinda sorta like a human life. ... I'm only interested at this point in arguing that it is in fact a human life....And our geese will blot out the sun.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 441 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Faith writes:
And yet we do. The Bible did. Our law does. Evangelical Christians did until recently. Even you don't actually want to treat it as a human being. We can't legitimately call it anything but a human life.... That's the topic. You can argue otherwise until the cows come home but unless you change your ideas about how to protect it, how to deal with the "crime" of terminating it, you're not really saying anything.And our geese will blot out the sun.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 441 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Heathen writes:
Humanity is something that develops. Hopefully, we are all becoming more human. It is not certain when the process begins. What happens at the moment of birth that makes the foetus suddenly Human? Our legal system decides arbitrarily when certain aspects of humanity kick in. The right to life generally begins at birth. It can be revoked if you commit a crime or happen to be born in an enemy nation.And our geese will blot out the sun.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 441 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Faith writes:
The evidence you've given is that even you don't believe the fetus is fully human. And there is no doubt that the fetus is a living human being by all the evidence I've given. Rhetoric can say that "all men are created equal" but as long as some are held as slaves, it is clear that that is not the real belief. And rhetoric can say that the fetus is fully human but that is not the real belief unless you advocate treating it like a fully human being - and you don't.And our geese will blot out the sun.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 441 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined:
|
Faith writes:
I'm not putting words in your mouth. I' m pointing out what the words mean. You're just parroting rhetoric without any understanding of the implications. Just read what I've actually said and stop putting words in my mouth. The fact is that nobody considers the fetus fully human. That's the point of the topic. I'm saying that you don't consider the fetus fully human - despite your unthinking rhetoric - because you don't propose to give the fetus the same protection that we give to humans. You apparently want abortion to be illegal but you don't want to deal with the perpetrators - i.e. the women. You are at least humane enough to agree that they should not be punished - but what you refuse to think about is the implication that that diminishes the humanity of the fetus. Try pulling your head out of the right-wing phrasebook for once and think about what you're saying.And our geese will blot out the sun.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 441 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined:
|
Faith writes:
Then stop doing it. Instead of just blathering the same old rhetoric that we've been hearing from your crowd for decades, blow the dust off your brain and think through your own position for a change. I'm sick of the sophistry and the mindless stupid accusations.And our geese will blot out the sun.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 441 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Tangle writes:
But it's a continuum with a finite beginning, isn't it? The real question is when does it begin to be harm? At birth? In the second trimester? At conception? When the grandmother met the grandfather? There is a continuum of harm here with the kind of 'abortion' created by the IUD to the murder of a new born. But it's harm all the way down.And our geese will blot out the sun.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 441 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Tangle writes:
Exactly. So "harm" is a term that doesn't have much meaning. One woman might think it's "harm" and another woman in the same situation might not think it's harm. But few people believe that that harm is significant.And our geese will blot out the sun.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 441 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined:
|
Tangle writes:
I meant, of course, that the way you are using the word in this thread, it has no meaning.
Of course 'harm' has a meaning, it's used in our courts everyday. Tangle writes:
But on the subject of abortion there is no consensus about harm. The only consensus is that the decision should be an individual one.
And it doesn't matter much what an individual thinks or feels about the harm, it's the overall consensus that matters. Tangle writes:
And if a psychopath sees harm in abortion, that doesn't mean there is harm either. Just because a psychopath doesn't see harm in murder doesn't mean that there is none.And our geese will blot out the sun.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 441 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Tangle writes:
You're using it as if there was a clear difference between "harm" and "no harm" when there clearly isn't.
So help me out, what's wrong with the way I'm using the word? Tangle writes:
But there's no consensus in our laws. They vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction.
There is, it's in our laws. Tangle writes:
The date being semi-arbitrary is the whole point. It's what makes the whole issue fuzzy. Only up to a semi-arbitrary date.And our geese will blot out the sun.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 441 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined:
|
Tangle writes:
The timeline you are trying to construct is both phoney and absurd. There is no exact "moment of birth", so talking about tenths of a second is just stupid. Do you say the same about a mother who kills her child 1/10 of a second after birth.And our geese will blot out the sun.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 441 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined:
|
Tangle writes:
This is not rocket science. Before conception, there is no fetus to terminate. After conception, there are different legalities in different jurisdictions. Just about all jurisdictions set the latest allowable time for termination at birth. In a given jurisdiction, the individuals involved make their decision within the legal restrictions or not. The point is not about exact timing, it's about what is different about a baby immediately before birth that makes it allowable to kill it? There are no absolutes, no absolute time when it is "harm" or not, no absolute time when it is permissible or not.And our geese will blot out the sun.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 441 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Tangle writes:
You don't seem to understand the "harm" angle.
Do you think you are telling me something I don't know and haven't already said a dozen times? Tangle writes:
That's what I'm saying to you: Neither you nor anybody else can just declare that there's no difference. Neither you nor anybody else can claim that there's a particular time when it becomes "wrong". Aim your remarks at Jar. He thinks there's a difference between a foetus just before birth that allows the mother to kill/abort it.And our geese will blot out the sun.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024