Originally posted by amannionYes, I agree it is a double standard, but crossing that line is not something I feel good about.
Does it strike any of you as hypocritical that while some of you are arguing with one breath that a foetus is a life that should be awarded all of the rights of the mother that bears it, while with another breath you argue that we can easily kill murderers.
There's a little bit of a double standard here.
Kelly
Originally posted by no1marauderNo, I would oppose it, I would voice my disapproval for it, and I wouldn't belittle those that object to the practice. It appears if that is the comparison you would level to abortion that would mean you would support the deeds and would go after those that disagree with it? If that is the case how bloody consistent of you.
Presumably KellyJay would have had no moral objection to being a guard at Auchwitz and herding prisoners into the gas chambers; that was an acceptable cultural norm and the law in the Third Reich.
Kelly
Originally posted by KellyJayYou can talk, you can debate, but evidently you cannot grasp that the word 'hell' does not always refer to that little fantasy realm that scares people into becoming Christians.
Everyone who goes to hell will do so because of the sin in their lives, period. Since all are sinners, there will be no shortage of people heading to hell. I can warn, I can talk, I can debate, but each of us will be making our own choices and we will live and die with them.
Kelly
Originally posted by BigDoggProblemI have never used it to scare anyone into being a Christian, it is what it is, if you are scared of it or not. If you want to bring it up you may but as far as claiming I use it to make people do things out of fear, no. People can claim a lot of things are 'hell' when I use it, it is about a lake of eternal fire, where no one is at this time.
You can talk, you can debate, but evidently you cannot grasp that the word 'hell' does not always refer to that little fantasy realm that scares people into becoming Christians.
Kelly
Originally posted by amannioni wouldnt have much of a problem killing a murderer but i would have a problem killing a fetus
Does it strike any of you as hypocritical that while some of you are arguing with one breath that a foetus is a life that should be awarded all of the rights of the mother that bears it, while with another breath you argue that we can easily kill murderers.
There's a little bit of a double standard here.
Originally posted by KellyJayYou're the one who brought it up.
I have never used it to scare anyone into being a Christian, it is what it is, if you are scared of it or not. If you want to bring it up you may but as far as claiming I use it to make people do things out of fear, no. People can claim a lot of things are 'hell' when I use it, it is about a lake of eternal fire, where no one is at this time.
Kelly
Originally posted by KellyJayI don't mind the dialogue, but if you constantly avoid my questions and talk about something else, I wouldn't call it a dialogue. I also don't mind if you talk about abortion doctors or clinics; it wouldn't be off-topic in this thread, as some other scenarios were about that. But you chose to reply to the first two scenarios, and I still can't see how you can think it's moral to kill somebody who is about to kill someone else, but immoral to keep someone from killing someone, using force, but not killing the person. Therefore I asked for clarification. I can't see how the fact that she needs someone else to help her kill the fetus would have any relevance for that question. You know she'll abort the child if you don't hinder her. If the abortion doctor whom she was going to would drop dead, she would go to someone else. We aren't talking about stopping abortion in general here, we are talking about one person who is about to take the life of a fetus, and you have the chance to do something about it.
"Isn't stopping the pregnant woman from driving to the abortion clinic also protecting the fetus from direct immediate harm? Is it different because the harm would be done in a few hours rather than a few seconds? If you knew that someone was on their way to kill someone else, would you think it's immoral to stop them from going to that place because it'll ...[text shortened]... dialogue as was suggested earlier in this thread, why cry about it when it happens?
Kelly
Originally posted by KellyJayAs usual, you're missing the point. My position is quite consistent; but then I don't insist that a zygote is a baby like you do. Thus, I have no moral qualms against abortion.
No, I would oppose it, I would voice my disapproval for it, and I wouldn't belittle those that object to the practice. It appears if that is the comparison you would level to abortion that would mean you would support the deeds and would go after those that disagree with it? If that is the case how bloody consistent of you.
Kelly
For your position to be consistent (given that you do take the position that a baby exists from the moment of conception), you must be a complete pacifist (oppose ALL killing under ALL conditions). Yet you are not.
KJ: 1. I'd call a moral act, protecting the child from immediate harm is justified.
Alternately, you might believe that all laws must be obeyed no matter what. Your objection to 2 as a moral act was based on it being illegal. Yet, if that is dispositive, then you should have no problem with those who by obeying the present laws of their country committed mass killing of innocents.
You can't have it both (or more than both) ways and have your positions be logically consistent. If you want to adopt positions that contradict each other, I guess that's your call - I'm merely pointing out their extreme inconsistency (as is Noodles - I agree with her that 2 should be a more moral act than 1 given the pre-condition of a belief in the "babyness" of the fetus about to be aborted).
1 edit
Originally posted by no1marauderOK, remember that these examples take as a given that a human being/person exists from the moment of conception.
OK, remember that these examples take as a given that a human being/person exists from the moment of conception.
1) KellyTay is walking down the street and sees Woman A about to plunge a dagger into the head of one month old Baby B. He pulls a gun out and shoots Woman A, killing her but saving the life of Baby A.
Moral or immoral act?
2) Kelly ...[text shortened]... lthy baby. KellyTay has thus saved the "life" of the unborn "baby".
Moral or immoral act?
1) No1AssMarauder is wandering down a back alley in the Red Light District and sees Mokko about to toss her most recent offspring into a burning dumpster. The quick thinking No1AssMarauder elects not to tackle Mokko or close the lid on the dumster, rather, he pulls out a gun out and shoots Mokko in the face. This instantly kills Mokko but saves the life of her spawn.
Moral or immoral act?
2) No1AssMarauder makes a trip to Canada and hooks up with Mokko at a StarTrek convention. No1AssMarauder takes Mokko back to the Super 8 Motel and nails without covering his wagon. Knowing how fertile the Mokester is, No1 pulls out just prior to nutting. Coming clean, No1 has prevented the birth of a new Mokko spawn and flushed away the "life" of an unborn "baby".
Moral or immoral act?
Originally posted by no1marauder"I don't insist that a zygote is a baby like you do"
As usual, you're missing the point. My position is quite consistent; but then I don't insist that a zygote is a baby like you do. Thus, I have no moral qualms against abortion.
For your position to be consistent (given that you do take the position that a baby exists from the moment of conception), you must be a complete pacifist (oppose ALL ...[text shortened]... given the pre-condition of a belief in the "babyness" of the fetus about to be aborted).
I'd say you don't have clue what my views are, though it has not stopped you from telling other people my views nonetheless, or how I'd act given situations you get to lay out.
I do not call a zygote a baby; I call a zygote a zygote, as I call a fetus a fetus. I maintain that each step in human development is just that, steps in human development and at any stage you can end that life, and you have cut down all other stages. You end the life when it is a zygote or a toddler you have stopped that life from being a teenager or elderly bottom line.
I do agree that my position is not consistent when it comes to stopping a murder of an infant, and stopping an abortion of a zygote or fetus, and I have stated why.
Kelly
2 edits
Originally posted by KellyJayI realize you're not bright enough to grasp this, but I'm not talking mere semantics; when I say you regard a zygote as a baby what I obviously mean is that you accord it the same status i.e. that of a human being. You have confirmed this.
"I don't insist that a zygote is a baby like you do"
I'd say you don't have clue what my views are, though it has not stopped you from telling other people my views nonetheless, or how I'd act given situations you get to lay out.
I do not call a zygote a baby; I call a zygote a zygote, as I call a fetus a fetus. I maintain that each step in human deve ...[text shortened]... of an infant, and stopping an abortion of a zygote or fetus, and I have stated why.
Kelly
If you are content to adopt contradictory, irrational positions that's up to you.
2 edits
Originally posted by no1marauderI try to be very careful with what words I use, you again are twisting words to suit your views. Yes, I say that with regard a fetus and all other steps of human development that they are just steps in human development, that is what I'm saying nothing less and nothing more! Once again you have twisted my words to suit you, just stick with what see me say and we will get along much better. If you want to deny that when we move from one step to the next in our development so we are not 'human' during part of this process that is your point of view not mine.
I realize you're not bright enough to grasp this, but I'm not talking mere semantics; when I say you regard a zygote as a baby what I obviously mean is that you accord it the same status i.e. that of a human being. You have confirmed this.
If you are content to adopt contradictory, irrational positions that's up to you.
Kelly
An unborn baby has not done anything whereas someone who gets the death penalty has done something to warrant it. These are different issues that pro-abortionists try to bring into the equation to help them deal with the silent holocaust.
Scientifically we can prove that an unborn baby is alive. A pregnant mother if killed can result in two counts of murder. We can call it a fetus, some tissue, a tree, but factually speaking the unborn baby is alive - end of story.
Originally posted by eagleeye222001I can't handle the silent cow holocaust either. Dammit, why didn't someone tell me that cows are alive before I ate that hamburger!?
An unborn baby has not done anything whereas someone who gets the death penalty has done something to warrant it. These are different issues that pro-abortionists try to bring into the equation to help them deal with the silent holocaust.
Scientifically we can prove that an unborn baby is alive. A pregnant mother if killed can result in two count ...[text shortened]... it a fetus, some tissue, a tree, but factually speaking the unborn baby is alive - end of story.
Originally posted by BigDoggProblemSo some life is less valuable than other life? I wonder if burgers made out of my neighbours kids would make it onto McDonald's $ menu? I'd like the zygote chocolate shake please.
I can't handle the silent cow holocaust either. Dammit, why didn't someone tell me that cows are alive before I ate that hamburger!?