Originally posted by KellyJayHave you heard about cause and effect or action-reaction? You definately have to answer for your deeds to someone, that someone being yourself. This is the way the world works. You can see it happening in your own life as well as that of others.
Of course this is not really an issue, unless man has to answer
to someone else for his thoughts, his reasons, his will.
Kelly
1 edit
Originally posted by NemesioThere are always going to be objections, you can object to
There are logical objections which are not predicated on God to things
like stealing or slavery. Whereas it might be his nature (and I
am just granting this for the sake of simplicity), that doesn't make
these things logically defensible. It may be the 'taste' of the time, but
we can prove that they are wrong, and we don't need God ...[text shortened]... n is wrong, then go for it. I've been begging
for a proof to justify my opinions.
Nemesio
anything your heart desires. The truth of the matter is that
it is your heart desires, tastes, and values that are under
discussion now and only that within this abortion debate.
Your heart, your values that is all that really matters here,
not the law of the land, no law is going to change how you
value things, people, or practices! If the law changes your
views, your values will remain intact, any action you
believe about strong enough you may still do with or
without a law. People will still have abortions with or
without the law of the land agreeing with them, because they
value what makes it tolerable, or justifies their need to
end that life much more than the lives within the women
having abortions.
It is only what you value where you can push your objections,
and if another does not share your values, your objections
go on deaf ears. Which is why unless the Lord leads me to
share what His Word says I basically don’t bother bringing it
up in a discussion. Those that do not share the importance of
God’s Word will reject out of hand anything it says. I attempt
to and sometimes not well, find our common ground and
go on from there in my debates. It is also the reason some
people basically just attack Christians, because the belief
system they have is based on an entirely different foundation
than God and His Word, they have no fear of God within them.
You can value yourself more than others and therefore having
a slave is something you may do; you can just cast one away
anytime you feel like it if they hold no value to you. You can
value someone that is self aware as some here like to do, you
can value what the law says, values are like opinions, and
body parts. Reality does not depend on human values, a tree is
a tree if we like it or not, a human life is a human life, if we
value it or not. We display our values and hearts by the words
we use, and God will judge us accordingly. We make plain our
souls daily by the words we use and the values we display. God
help us, we do need His help, His grace, His mercy!
Kelly
1 edit
Originally posted by LordOfTheChessboardI agree I do have to answer to myself for my actions, people kill
Have you heard about cause and effect or action-reaction? You definately have to answer for your deeds to someone, that someone being yourself. This is the way the world works. You can see it happening in your own life as well as that of others.
themselves over guilt for things they have done, as they have for
other reasons too. We also are held accountable to the powers that
be in our lives, and those that are connected to us like our family
too.
Truth, we live in it, but we may choose to ignore it most of our
lives to our own hurt.
Kelly
Originally posted by LordOfTheChessboardI have demonstrated the fetuses don't have interests because
No one can prove to you that abortion is wrong but neither can anyone prove the opposite.
So now we HAVE proof that we do not need proof to justify our feelings on the matter.
they lack the capacity to have these interests (no developed brain).
Fetuses (to a certain point in development) do not have a point of
view. This is a fact.
Can you prove a rock doesn't merit rights? A tree? Those arguments
can be used to prove a fetus doesn't merit rights either. The
arguments for rights conferral (or moral consideration, or whatever),
stem from having interests.
If you can provide me with another line of argumentation, I am all
ears. Believe me, I am just as hungry for this as Ivanhoe.
Nemesio
Originally posted by KellyJayIf you are going to take a relativistic view of things, then
There are always going to be objections, you can object to
anything your heart desires. The truth of the matter is that
it is your heart desires, tastes, and values that are under
discussion now and only that within this abortion debate.
all you are saying is that a majority opinion is the 'right' opinion.
So, when slavery existed it was 'right' until it was overturned in
which case anti-slavery is 'right.'
This is crazy. It is not about personal taste, but about reason.
I've reiterated reasons for not considering fetuses for moral
consideration. I've expressed the logical flaws in those people
in this thread who have opposed such a position.
Please, offer me a rational opposition to abortion! You will find
I will be the most vociferous supporter of such a position. But,
don't expect me (or anyone) to be swayed by an opinion
(especially since you claim it is just 'your taste' and 'my taste'😉.
Nemesio
Originally posted by LordOfTheChessboardI never said that I have the right to go around intentionally killing young fetuses -- only that the woman has the right to intentionally kill the young fetus insider her if she alone so desires.
[b]the only ones here who are completely disregarding/disallowing/ignoring the rights of the woman are the ones who keep insisting that personhood begins at conception merely because that is what they have been brainwashed/programmed to believe without good reason.
No, it is people like you who are brainwashed to think without good ...[text shortened]... n that the absence of personhood in a living being gives you the right to intentionaly kill it.[/b]
Originally posted by ivanhoeGood one, hoe.
Take that, Lemon Jello ...... 😛
Good grief: one turns his back on a thread for a day or so and when he returns the thread is officially FUBAR.
Concerning a 'slippery slope': I agree that there are many people who hold very controversial views on personhood. For example, according to some "actual possession" criteria, newborns and infants (neonates) are NOT moral persons. Usually, those who hold such a view still argue against infanticide, etc. on other grounds, such as utilitarian reasons. I don't agree with these views any more than you do. I think that the neonate is not a moral agent, in the sense of being a member of a moral community; but the neonate has fundamental rights. So does the fetus in the the third trimester. However, for reasons already discussed, I do not think the first and second trimester fetus has rights, and the woman should be free to abort it.
Now, if you can show me a logically valid argument that goes from the view that I have just stated to these 'slippery slopes' you talk about, then I will take notice. However, from what I have read so far, I don't think any such slippery slope exists.
But it's awfully entertaining! If you fellas work really hard, then by the end of the thread, in addition to infanticide, the murder of crippled children -- and did I catch cannibalism in there too? (good one Hal 🙄) -- you might make it so that my views on the young fetus are also directly responsible for the Kennedy Assassination and the Challenger Disaster.
Originally posted by LemonJelloand did I catch cannibalism in there too? (good one Hal 🙄)
Good one, hoe.
Good grief: one turns his back on a thread for a day or so and when he returns the thread is officially FUBAR.
Concerning a 'slippery slope': I agree that there are many people who hold very controversial views on personhood. For example, according to some "actual possession" criteria, newborns and infants (neonates) are NOT ...[text shortened]... g fetus are also directly responsible for the Kennedy Assassination and the Challenger Disaster.
No1 gets all the glory on that one...
My slippery slope is limited to the terminally ill, disabled infants and the mentally insane.
You still a big fan of Singer? You should see what he has to say about Bestiality. 🙄🙄
Originally posted by NemesioMy point had nothing and I mean nothing to do with the majority
If you are going to take a relativistic view of things, then
all you are saying is that a majority opinion is the 'right' opinion.
So, when slavery existed it was 'right' until it was overturned in
which case anti-slavery is 'right.'
This is crazy. It is not about personal taste, but about reason.
I've reiterated reasons for not considering f ...[text shortened]... an opinion
(especially since you claim it is just 'your taste' and 'my taste'😉.
Nemesio
opinion of anything! It is the heart of man that I was speaking too,
and that is always about what man has inside as he stands and
opens his mouth revealing what is inside. What he alone values
is always going to be revealed by his words and deeds, making you
value something you do not care about simply will not happen, it
isn't in you. Jesus said that what we do to the least of these
speaking of those that belong to him, we have done it unto him.
Wouldn't you call those that carry no value the least, or do you
maintain that those that are aborted don't even rate being called
the least of these, even to Jesus?
Kelly
1 edit
Originally posted by HalitoseGoo. I challenge you to find exactly where I said that I am a "big fan" of Singer. All I said was that I sat in on some of his classes as an undergrad; further, I said that I think he has some good ideas. I also think he has some lousy ideas. You are the one who keeps bringing up Singer, trying to support your ridiculous 'slippery slope' notions. Then you cap it all off by saying that it is up to me to prove your claims false. That is not the way it works: if you assert that there is a slippery slope, then the burden of proof is on you. So let me clearly outline the procedure for you: consider my claim that the young fetus (first and second trimesters) is morally inconsiderable; starting from the assumption that this claim is true, please demonstrate how it logically follows that it is fine and dandy to kill "the terminally ill, disabled infants and the mentally insane." If you cannot do it, then it sounds like your beef is with Singer, not LemonJello.
[b]and did I catch cannibalism in there too? (good one Hal 🙄)
No1 gets all the glory on that one...
My slippery slope is limited to the terminally ill, disabled infants and the mentally insane.
You still a big fan of Singer? You should see what he has to say about Bestiality. 🙄🙄[/b]
Hal, my car needs some new windshield wipers. Could you please tell me which brand Jesus would buy?
Originally posted by NemesioIt is personal taste, do you think slave owners care about your
If you are going to take a relativistic view of things, then
all you are saying is that a majority opinion is the 'right' opinion.
So, when slavery existed it was 'right' until it was overturned in
which case anti-slavery is 'right.'
This is crazy. It is not about personal taste, but about reason.
I've reiterated reasons for not considering f ...[text shortened]... an opinion
(especially since you claim it is just 'your taste' and 'my taste'😉.
Nemesio
view of how humanity should be treated? You think you can or
could win them over by your views of right and wrong? They
care about what they care about, your views are good for you,
but that is as far as it goes. Your logic is only good if everyone
views your variables the same way you do, if they don't give the
weight you do to human existence, your logic will fail.
The same is true here with abortion; you do not give much value
or any care about what you have agreed is a human life at its
earliest stages; so when I say it should be cared for you ask,
“Why”! You ask, because you don’t care about that life on its
face value. You do not value that life; you don’t recognize it as
valuable, therefore it isn’t to you, even though you know what it
is. You know it will become someone you could interact with if
he or she is allowed to grow naturally, but again, you do not care
to give that life value.
Kelly
Originally posted by NemesioRead my earlier posts, these will show you that you are being irrational when you base your reason on morality. Either you dont understand this or you dont want to know which is both fine by me, im only after the truth here.
I have demonstrated the fetuses don't have interests because
they lack the capacity to have these interests (no developed brain).
Fetuses (to a certain point in development) do not have a point of
view. This is a fact.
Can you prove a rock doesn't merit rights? A tree? Those arguments
can be used to prove a fetus doesn't merit rights either. ...[text shortened]... argumentation, I am all
ears. Believe me, I am just as hungry for this as Ivanhoe.
Nemesio
Originally posted by LemonJelloHal, my car needs some new windshield wipers. Could you please tell me which brand Jesus would buy?
Goo. I challenge you to find exactly where I said that I am a "big fan" of Singer. All I said was that I sat in on some of his classes as an undergrad; further, I said that I think he has some good ideas. I also think he has some lousy ideas. You are the one who keeps bringing up Singer, trying to support your ridiculous 'slippery slope' no ...[text shortened]... my car needs some new windshield wipers. Could you please tell me which brand Jesus would buy?
They didn't have cars in c. 30 AD. I don't think He would really care which brand and neither do I. Knock yourself out; good luck with the shopping.
Was I drooling too much, or do you take me as some sort of fundie nut?
P.S. I was thinking of a pun in the line of "firebrand" and a rude gesture, but I'll leave that for a more opportune moment. 😏