|
Post by blondie on Apr 25, 2007 6:04:11 GMT -5
"You can peg "Life" beginning anywhere you want. It's totally arbitrary. The term is too abstract to have a meaning."Hey, you are not alive yet....you are dead. See how stupid that sounds? That's the application of your logic. You CAN'T peg life beginning anywhere you want. I would like to see how arbitrary you think death is. LOL. "I'm not dead yet!...as you scream to the top of your lungs during an autopsy." Who decides? If your moral ethics are based on a religion than your religion is what the decision is based upon. If your moral ethics are based on what you have gleened and accepted from other religions, then it's based on that. I have yet to meet a person who's ethics were not based off of already established mores of religion. An atheist such as yourself can trace your moral teachings back to your parents or their parents or their parents, etc. I like your "examples", pro-abortion people always have to use the most extreme scenarios in order to bolster their arguments. It's called an Appeal to Emotion. You didn't answer the questions.
|
|
|
Post by bamagatr on Apr 25, 2007 6:15:01 GMT -5
Life is just an English word. Another entry for the "blondieism" diary...
|
|
|
Post by phinehas on Apr 25, 2007 8:12:19 GMT -5
At least 98% to 99% of all abortions are not due to being gang raped by your father and his buddies nor are they represented by the scenario of being raped PLUS coincidently having some medical condition where you will die if you don't have an abortion.
That being said, my position has already been declared in another thread. Only in the case of the mother's life is an abortion justifiable in my opinion.
|
|
|
Post by blondie on Apr 25, 2007 8:17:15 GMT -5
At least 98% to 99% of all abortions are not due to being gang raped by your father and his buddies nor are they represented by the scenario of being raped PLUS coincidently having some medical condition where you will die if you don't have an abortion. That being said, my position has already been declared in another thread. Only in the case of the mother's life is an abortion justifiable in my opinion. There you have it. Religion used to rationalize cruelty. You're an intolerant, sick individual and this is why people you love have lied to you about having abortions.
|
|
|
Post by phinehas on Apr 25, 2007 8:27:16 GMT -5
LOL. I assure you that nobody I know has had an abortion, at least anyone that would think it was any of my buisness . The closest that came was my sister when she became pregnant at 16. Her daughter is actually going to be married in the next couple of months. So your are wrong about that.
Intolerant? perhaps but does one have to tolerate everything? You can't "tolerate" my opinion, so I guess that makes you "intolerant" as well.
Sick individual? I am not the one raping women.
I am for not murdering innocent life but you are...so who is it that is rationalizing cruelty? I would say you.
|
|
|
Post by blondie on Apr 25, 2007 8:42:26 GMT -5
LOL. I assure you that nobody I know has had an abortion, . Dream on sunshine. I bet nobody you know is gay either.
|
|
|
Post by dixiepixie on Apr 25, 2007 9:26:53 GMT -5
LOL. I assure you that nobody I know has had an abortion, . Dream on sunshine. I bet nobody you know is gay either. I know several gay people..I also know some girls who used abortion as birth control when we were in high school. One girl (I guess you would call her a woman now, since we are in our 30's) can't have children now that she wants them because her uterus is so damaged from so many abortions.
|
|
|
Post by zoomixer on Apr 25, 2007 9:44:04 GMT -5
It doesn't matter. I never said abortion wasn't infanticide. I only said it should be the mother's choice. I want to make sure I understand you. Are you saying that you support the right to practice infanticide?
|
|
|
Post by blondie on Apr 25, 2007 10:07:11 GMT -5
It doesn't matter. I never said abortion wasn't infanticide. I only said it should be the mother's choice. I want to make sure I understand you. Are you saying that you support the right to practice infanticide? I believe it's fair to call abortion infanticide. If you want. A lot of this issue is a language game. Once the kid's out it's not abortion anymore. So yes and no.
|
|
|
Post by blondie on Apr 25, 2007 10:10:46 GMT -5
Dream on sunshine. I bet nobody you know is gay either. I know several gay people..I also know some girls who used abortion as birth control when we were in high school. One girl (I guess you would call her a woman now, since we are in our 30's) can't have children now that she wants them because her uterus is so damaged from so many abortions. You probably also know women that had abortions and it turned out to be the best decision because billy-bob who knocked them up in high school is a drunk loser and the doctor she married is a saint. Also don't forget that safe, legal abortion cuts way down on the "welfare queens."
|
|
|
Post by zoomixer on Apr 25, 2007 10:15:51 GMT -5
I want to make sure I understand you. Are you saying that you support the right to practice infanticide? I believe it's fair to call abortion infanticide. If you want. A lot of this issue is a language game. Once the kid's out it's not abortion anymore. So yes and no. *sigh* Sometimes I feel a bit like this: ;D So, do you have a problem with a mother giving birth and then throwing the baby in a dumpster because the she doesn't want to take care of it?
|
|
|
Post by phinehas on Apr 25, 2007 10:22:22 GMT -5
LOL. I assure you that nobody I know has had an abortion, . Dream on sunshine. I bet nobody you know is gay either. Let me finish my quote for you since it would actually reflect what I stated. "...., at least anyone that would think it was any of my buisness." I have known a few gay people and had two gay boses at two different companies, so you are wrong once again.
|
|
|
Post by phinehas on Apr 25, 2007 10:29:59 GMT -5
blondie won't answer questions if they may contradict a premise she holds or her worldview on things. Like she wouldn't explain to me how her "life process" doesn't have a start. She will play the "it's arbitrary" card or sidetrack the issue.
That's one reason why secular ethics are inferior. I am able to state clearly and simply when abortion is a justifiable option and that is due to my ethics being based on absolutes.
|
|
|
Post by blondie on Apr 25, 2007 10:56:06 GMT -5
hat's one reason why secular ethics are inferior. I am able to state clearly and simply when abortion is a justifiable option and that is due to my ethics being based on absolutes. Inferior to a system where a totalitarian state make our most personal choices for us and rape victims have to carry their children to term? Phinehas, we all know your ethical system is supposed to be based on the Bible and it's full of all sorts of crazy rules you ignore. My system is much more consistent. Yours is totally random. "So, do you have a problem with a mother giving birth and then throwing the baby in a dumpster because the she doesn't want to take care of it?" Of course. I have a problem with abortion too, just like all pro-choices. I'm just not going to tell women what to do with their bodies. It's thier decision. We have to draw a legal line somewhere. Right now it's six months (?) Do you have a problem with the state owning your body and making your most personal medical decisions for you?
|
|
|
Post by blondie on Apr 25, 2007 11:00:07 GMT -5
my ethics being based on absolutes. An absolutely random new-age cherry picking of traditions.
|
|
|
Post by phinehas on Apr 25, 2007 11:00:39 GMT -5
Are they throwing THEIR bodies into dumpsters? Uh? No. Do a DNA test blondie on a baby and you will find that it doesn't match up with the mothers. A baby is NOT a mother's body. For a person that holds science up as their God, you sure don't want to apply it in many cases.
|
|
|
Post by phinehas on Apr 25, 2007 11:03:05 GMT -5
my ethics being based on absolutes. An absolutely random new-age cherry picking of traditions. Ad Hominem P.S. Did I ever say that I was an Orthodox Christian? Prove my comments to be wrong and stop using Appeals to Common Practice, Appeals to Authority and Appeals to Belief. They are logical fallacies.
|
|
|
Post by blondie on Apr 25, 2007 11:45:25 GMT -5
An absolutely random new-age cherry picking of traditions. Ad Hominem P.S. Did I ever say that I was an Orthodox Christian? Prove my comments to be wrong and stop using Appeals to Common Practice, Appeals to Authority and Appeals to Belief. They are logical fallacies. Sigh. If you think your ethics are are Christian absolutes and dude down the street thinks the same thing about his much different set of ethics what can be deduce from this? I've made my position on abortion clear. It should be safe, legal and rare. I believe this is a fair compromise between freedom and compassion. It's only an opinion.
|
|
|
Post by phinehas on Apr 25, 2007 12:03:26 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by blondie on Apr 25, 2007 13:39:04 GMT -5
You claim to have access to some absolute truth that you've never actually clarified. You call it Christianity but there are plenty of other Christians that also claim to have knowledge of an absolute truth that's different than yours.
If an absolute truth existed then people wouldn't disagree about rape victims having to bare the children of their abusers.
I'm a moral relativist so everything falls right into place according to my world view.
|
|
|
Post by blondie on Apr 25, 2007 13:53:20 GMT -5
zoomixer,
If you think your stance is so obvious because it happens to fall in line with the far-right conservatives why are you so baffled that my position which falls in line with moderate republicans and most democrats?
Abortion is a complicated ethical issue. People come in over the spectrum. The fact that you seem to think there are easy answers is naive.
|
|
|
Post by phinehas on Apr 25, 2007 14:17:57 GMT -5
A = 1 X states A = 1 Y states A = 2 Z states A = 3
Your logical fallacy is that A doesn't =1 because there is no consensus between X,Y,Z.
That covers most of your comments.
"I'm a moral relativist so ever thing falls right into place according to my world view."
That sounds like....
I hold a worldview that can make 1 + 1 = 3 in order for what I want to hold as truth at any particular point can become truth. That way, my worldview doesn't rely on any consistency in judgment other than inconsistency.
|
|
|
Post by zoomixer on Apr 25, 2007 14:20:20 GMT -5
zoomixer, If you think your stance is so obvious because it happens to fall in line with the far-right conservatives... This is absurd. I don't think my stance is so obvious because it happens to fall in line with the far-right conservatives and I'm baffled that you would try to insult me by insinuating such. I know the only thing you specialize in is drive-by attacks on people and what they believe but this is a stretch even for you. I've laid out a clear and logical argument showing why I believe what I believe and you have yet to present any information or argument that would invalidate the points I've made. Have I ever indicated such? Please, I know your capable of a greater level of intelligence than such a statement. A wide variety of viewpoints does not mean that my view is incorrect. I've told you that I have yet to be shown any evidence, information, or given any argument that would indicate that I'm wrong. I've also made it very clear that I'm open to debate which is something that has to be dragged out of you. I've spent half of this thread just trying to get you to state how you actually feel. If you have something you'd like to present that you think is good evidence that I'm wrong then please quit your stupid little attacks and do so.
|
|
|
Post by phinehas on Apr 25, 2007 14:24:19 GMT -5
She still can't explain how a process has no start.
Back to the autopsy.....
blondie: "Stop! I said I am not dead yet....aGGGHhhhhUGGGGggg" Quincy: "Death is totally arbitrary" blondie: "I take it baccccckkkk...aghhhghhguuu"
|
|
|
Post by blondie on Apr 25, 2007 15:04:52 GMT -5
A wide variety of viewpoints does not mean that my view is incorrect. I've told you that I have yet to be shown any evidence, information, or given any argument that would indicate that I'm wrong. I've also made it very clear that I'm open to debate which is something that has to be dragged out of you. I've spent half of this thread just trying to get you to state how you actually feel. If you have something you'd like to present that you think is good evidence that I'm wrong then please quit your stupid little attacks and do so. There is no "correct" opinion or view. It's subjective. You said life begins when the sperm hits the egg. So what? The next guy can say life begins at birth or maybe sperms are alive. A fertilized egg doesn't have conscience. It doesn't want to live or feel pain like that cow you had for dinner. ALL the arguments for and against abortion are circular. You can't debate opinion. I've stated my opinion over and over. I don't know how I could be any clearer. You're as dense as Phinehas. Sorry, that was uncalled for.
|
|
|
Post by zoomixer on Apr 25, 2007 15:15:46 GMT -5
There is no "correct" opinion or view. It's subjective. You said life begins when the sperm hits the egg. So what? The next guy can say life begins at birth or maybe sperms are alive. A fertilized egg doesn't have conscience. It doesn't want to live or feel pain like that cow you had for dinner. ALL the arguments for and against abortion are circular. You can't debate opinion. I've stated my opinion over and over. I don't know how I could be any clearer. You're as dense as Phinehas. Sorry, that was uncalled for. It is the opinion of just about everyone that it is wrong to walk up to a stranger and kill them. So, do you think we should have laws that make it illegal to walk up to someone on the street and blow their brains out? Should we be able to prosecute criminals based on our opinions? After all, aren't all our laws just simply the opinions of the majority of people? Is that any basis for justice? Opinions? Do you even think we should have laws at all?
|
|
|
Post by fragerella on Apr 25, 2007 15:16:21 GMT -5
I wasn't going to do this, but I changed my mind about adding my opinion (be it ever so humble and simple) to this thread. While I'm personally opposed to abortion I firmly believe that the choice in having one should be my own to make. Not my church's, not my family's, not the voting populace, and most certainly not my government's. I'll get flamed for quoting this person, I'm sure, but it illustrates some of the broader views that should be considered when discussing abortion. full transcriptexcerpt:
....The fact of the matter is that they're all in contention with something else which is also a moral value and also equally important unless you put it completely out of your mind or your heart. For instance, let's look at the abortion question. I'm opposed to abortion.
But I do not believe that just because you're opposed to abortion that that makes you pro-life. In fact, I think in many cases, your morality is deeply lacking. If all you want is a child born but not a child fed, not a child educated, not a child housed and why would I think that you don't? Because you don't want any tax money to go there. That's not pro-life. That's pro-birth. We need a much broader conversation on what the morality of pro-life is.
|
|
|
Post by blondie on Apr 25, 2007 15:19:35 GMT -5
She still can't explain how a process has no start. You can put your start point anywhere you want. Are you going to splice milliseconds? Which one of these counts? Maybe we should wait for a brain function. But which brain function? I know this is all too subtle for you. Maybe you want the exact second Jesus sticks in the soul. Well, maybe that's not for a few months after you're born. Maybe it's eight days after. That would explain the baptism. Hmm. Circumcision? YHWH must have had some reason for that. And he didn't care about killing non-Hebrew kids. That's it! You get your soul when you lose your foreskin. It all makes sense now. That way women can be property and it's OK to kill foreigners. They don't have souls. Grab my coat Elizabeth I'm going to Synagogue.
|
|
|
Post by blondie on Apr 25, 2007 15:25:11 GMT -5
It is the opinion of just about everyone that it is wrong to walk up to a stranger and kill them. So, do you think we should have laws that make it illegal to walk up to someone on the street and blow their brains out? Should we be able to prosecute criminals based on our opinions? After all, aren't all our laws just simply the opinions of the majority of people? Is that any basis for justice? Opinions? Do you even think we should have laws at all? Our laws are just opinions. That's how the system works. We vote. Lawyers argue. Judges rule. Congress votes. POTUS vetoes. It's the opinion of most Americans that abortion should be legal.
|
|
|
Post by zoomixer on Apr 25, 2007 15:34:31 GMT -5
Our laws are just opinions. That's how the system works. We vote. Lawyers argue. Judges rule. Congress votes. POTUS vetoes. It's the opinion of most Americans that abortion should be legal. So, there was nothing innately wrong with the VA Tech killings? If it's just your opinion that it's wrong to murder then what right do you have to condem someone for doing so?
|
|