1 edit
Originally posted by KellyJaySo what?? If the person who was my mother had decided to be a nun or to abstain from sex altogether or had been run over by a bus or any of a million other possibilities, I would not be here. What exactly does that prove??
You know so we are not confused, had your mother killed the
young fetus within her while you were there within her, you would
not be here, that is the plain and simple truth of that.
Kelly
And no matter what you and the other antiabortionists say, woman who have a miscarriage do not consider it as tragic as the death of a child. You're utterly foolish to keep insisting on something anybody who has experienced this knows to be not so.
Originally posted by LemonJelloI guess you don't see it. She kills that young fetus, than you
If my mother had elected to abort the young fetus that eventually later developed into me, then that young fetus would not have developed into the person that I was and am. Yes, that does seems straightforward enough. What exactly does that prove though? Is that supposed to make a point regarding whether that young fetus was morally considerable or not ...[text shortened]... it would have been wrong for my mother to abort that young fetus? I don't see the connection.
would not be here, if that doesn't sink in, how about would it
matter if she killed you in the second trimester? You were still
not the person you are now back then, would you be here then
if she killed you at that time? How about if she killed you in
the third trimester, or when you were an infant, or a toddler,
or a teenager, if she kills you at any stage would you be here?
You were developing; I’d wager you still are in many ways,
and will be until the day you die, but I guess some levels of
developments for you are not as important as others, but all
are required for each of us to be here now, we cannot skip
any step, if you lose your life at any stage it is gone.
Kelly
Originally posted by no1marauderIt proves unlike you spit that carries your DNA, if the process begins
So what?? If the person who was my mother had decided to be a nun or to abstain from sex altogether or had been run over by a bus or any of a million other possibilities, I would not be here. What exactly does that prove??
and gets stopped something no longer lives to grow into the next
stage of human development. If your mother had become a nun and
never had sex you would not be here correct, but she also would not
have killed you during your life's early stages of life too.
Kelly
Originally posted by KellyJayDo you people ever say anything on this issue but "I SAY IT'S A BABY?"
I guess you don't see it. She kills that young fetus, than you
would not be here, if that doesn't sink in, how about would it
matter if she killed you in the second trimester? You were still
not the person you are now back then, would you be here then
if she killed you at that time? How about if she killed you in
the third trimester, or when you wer ...[text shortened]... to be here now, we cannot skip
any step, if you lose your life at any stage it is gone.
Kelly
Originally posted by KellyJayParrot.
It proves unlike you spit that carries your DNA, if the process begins
and gets stopped something no longer lives to grow into the next
stage of human development. If your mother had become a nun and
never had sex you would not be here correct, but she also would not
have killed you during your life's early stages of life too.
Kelly
2 edits
Originally posted by Nemesio[/b]What is common sense? Someone who agrees with you?!?!
Originally posted by The Chess Express
[b]This is not true. I mentioned that we should use common sense along with empathy. This means have empathy for the fetus, and common sense to know the potential of human life. If you let your common sense be dictated by the majority, then you are lost.
What is common sense? Someone who agrees with yo ...[text shortened]... common sense and
empathy to your religious perspective should be the basis of law.
Nemesio[/b]
Common sense is the prevailing sense of the majority. That is its
definition.
No my friend. You are very much mistaken in your definition of common sense.
According to the dictionary common sense = “Sound judgment not based on specialized knowledge.” Feel free to look it up for yourself.
It is common sense to not allow the majority to dictate what you believe.
And, you must not know what empathy means. It means feeling the
emotion, suffering, concern, or whatever vicariously. You are asking
people to have empathy for something which has not yet developed
any of these traits.
Empathy = “1. Identification with and understanding of another’s situation, feelings and motives. 2. The attribution of one’s feeling to an object.
Please, look these words up if you are unclear of their definition. It will save a lot of time and effort.
According to the dictionary, an object does not even have to be alive for us to feel empathy towards it. We all know that an unborn baby is alive.
here was my point, the vast majority of mothers do not have the same pang of loss
for a miscarriage that they do for a newborn. We can say this with
confidence because of so few funerals.
Again, you are not qualified to say what the vast majority of women feel about miscarriages. You have never been through it yourself, and the small number of women you may have dealt with don’t represent the millions world wide.
I’m sure there are cultures and areas of the world were most women give funerals to their miscarried babies.
You are not following the argument. Repeat after me:
Capacity to suffer
Your argument is as misguided as your definitions of words such as empathy, capacity, and common sense.
If it is not ok to kill people in a way that will cause them no suffering, then it is not ok to kill and unborn baby. If a dentist uses Novocain to take away the pain, the dentist has taken away the persons capacity to feel the pain. Whether the patient still has the nerve receptors is irrelevant if they cannot be used.
if you want to make a rational argument which don't involve
Sacred Caveats, I'm all ears, but I am not going to continue this little
round-about where you keep asserting that common sense and
empathy to your religious perspective should be the basis of law.
You never answered my question. Where do the laws come from? I’ll answer it for you. They come from the law makers idea’s of right and wrong.
You claimed that you’re not a atheist, I find this hard to believe if you don’t think that God gave us things like the capacity for empathy, compassion and common sense.
II Timothy 1:7 “For God hath not given us the spirit of fear; but of power, and of love, and a sound mind.”
Psalm 33:13-15 “The Lord looketh from heaven; he beholdeth all the sons of men. From the place of his habitation he looketh upon all the inhabitants of the earth. He fashioned their hearts alike; he considereth all there works.”
Since you insist on an atheistic perspective an choose to disregard passages like
Psalm 9:17 “The wicked shall be turned into hell, and all the nations that forget God.”
by saying things like religion has no place in American law, lets look at it from an atheist’s perspective. Our concepts of right and wrong come from our neural functions. The law is a legalized moral because the law makers believe that the law is right.
Does this appease your obsession for separation of church and state?
Originally posted by LemonJelloThe chicken egg isn't even part of the chicken's body once outside
[b]We can call chicken eggs not chickens
and destroy all chicken eggs because we don't value them as much
as we do chickens, of course that kills off all the chickens in the
process, because one would be failing to take into account that
chickens are required to eggs at some part of their life
This chicken discourse is tasty and finger lickin ...[text shortened]... is nothing with which to empathize; you may as well try to empathize with the plight of a rock.[/b]
of the chicken, yet if all the eggs were kept from developing we
lose all the chickens.
As far as rights are concern, the word rights is something we as people
create to suit us, as our man made laws. They are given and they are
also taken away by man. Your use of the word 'rights' is just another
word for excusing the death of the unborn. Claiming that they have no
rights is meaningless, we can say that all left handed people have no
rights and kill all that are left handed and stop all children from
growing up defected by using their left hands. The bottom line is we
value and we devalue what we will, and right now you do not value the
life within the woman.
Kelly
Originally posted by KellyJayParrot: As far as rights are concern, the word rights is something we as people
The chicken egg isn't even part of the chicken's body once outside
of the chicken, yet if all the eggs were kept from developing we
lose all the chickens.
As far as rights are concern, the word rights is something we as people
create to suit us, as our man made laws. They are given and they are
also taken away by man. Your use of the word 'rights ...[text shortened]... e and we devalue what we will, and right now you do not value the
life within the woman.
Kelly
create to suit us, as our man made laws. They are given and they are
also taken away by man.
Sorry, wrong answer!!! Tell 'em what he's lost, Johnny!
Originally posted by no1marauderI'm sorry we have another source in your opinon for laws and rights
Parrot: As far as rights are concern, the word rights is something we as people
create to suit us, as our man made laws. They are given and they are
also taken away by man.
Sorry, wrong answer!!! Tell 'em what he's lost, Johnny!
than man's desires? What source would you refer me too, God?
Kelly
Originally posted by KellyJayI understand what you are saying, but I just think you are confused. I claim that if the young fetus that later developed into me would have been aborted, then I would never have existed at all. That is a whole lot different from my existing and then being murdered, which is what you are claiming. But to convince me you are right, you need to convince me that I once existed as a first or second trimester fetus. Exactly how would that work, considering that the young fetus lacks the capacity for consciousness? How could *I* ever have been something like that? How could *I* ever have been something that lacks the capacity for a conscious self? I think the young fetus is just another portion of the woman's body, and she is free to do what she likes with it. If that means that a potential person never actualizes and comes into existence, then so what.
I guess you don't see it. She kills that young fetus, than you
would not be here, if that doesn't sink in, how about would it
matter if she killed you in the second trimester? You were still
not the person you are now back then, would you be here then
if she killed you at that time? How about if she killed you in
the third trimester, or when you wer ...[text shortened]... to be here now, we cannot skip
any step, if you lose your life at any stage it is gone.
Kelly
how about would it
matter if she killed you in the second trimester?
*I* was never a second trimester fetus, so your question is incoherent.
How about if she killed you in
the third trimester, or when you were an infant, or a toddler,
or a teenager,
That would have been murder. Yes, murder is a problem. I am not disputing that.
Originally posted by KellyJayFor rights, possibly. Or because of our very nature. Read Locke, Paine, Declaration of Independence, etc. etc. etc. And note that they discovered and elucidated Fundamental Rights theory, like Newton discovered and elucidated the Theory of Gravity, but both human rights and gravity existed prior to these men.
I'm sorry we have another source in your opinon for laws and rights
than man's desires? What source would you refer me too, God?
Kelly
2 edits
Originally posted by The Chess ExpressWhat an ironic statement. Were Madison, Jefferson, Washington and all the rest of the men who created the United States and who also believed in Fundamental Rights and Social Contract theory insane too in your estimation?
I'm afraid reason has abandoned him on this issue.
Originally posted by LemonJelloI did not use the word murder, murder is a legal term; if you
I understand what you are saying, but I just think you are confused. I claim that if the young fetus that later developed into me would have been aborted, then I would never have existed at all. That is a whole lot different from my existing and then being murdered, which is what you are claiming. But to convince me you are right, you need to convince ...[text shortened]... enager,
That would have been murder. Yes, murder is a problem. I am not disputing that.[/b]
could make it legal to kill left handed people than legally you
would not be murdering them, they would be without rights, so
at that time according to the laws of man you would not be
murdering them. The law which today justifies the death of
the unborn may at some other time change, they do from time
to time. I doubt this will ever change though, and if it did
change it would not stop abortions. I believe man’s heart to be
to wicked to care when there is money to be made.
If you die, be it with or without the hand of another acting to
make sure you die, your dead, gone, toast as far as this life is
concern. Be it as a fetus or any other stage of human
development, again you are simply devaluing the life you had
at your earliest stages, and justifying it by claiming at that stage
of life you had no rights or value at that time.
Kelly
Originally posted by no1marauderWell it did come up there was a creator that gave us some rights,
What an ironic statement. Were Madison, Jefferson, Washington and all the rest of the men who created the United States and who also believed in Fundamental Rights and Social Contract theory insane too in your estimation?
is that what your refering too?
Kelly