"Retard" is a derogatory term directed toward a specific set of people who were born a certain way. Do you understand why you should never use that word?
:
So is "moron."
Do you understand why you should never call anyone a "moron"?
By the rest of your post, it is apparent you just want to troll. You don't "love." You don't even know how to restrain yourself to the point of being decent: something that people who know love do without thought or effort.
This is why I ignored you for so long. So the next time you start crying for attention, you should know why I went back to ignoring you. You'll have to go troll somebody else.
At this point I believe I've made my position quite clear. I don't really know what else I can write to make it any clearer. Just because you don't agree with me doesn't mean I've been ambiguous.
I hope you will do some serious thinking about why it's important to respect other people's right to be wrong, and what it means to live in a country that's trying to hold freedom as one of it's most cherished ideals.
Slogan/motto:
“Theist and atheist: The fight between them is as to whether God shall be called God or shall have some other name” S.B.
Reputation:
June 16th, 2012, 10:00 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by PureX
A dead human body is a dead human body. A live human body is a live human body. A human fetus is a human fetus.
Quote:
Originally Posted by WizardofOz
What, if anything, did the above clarify?
Quote:
Originally Posted by PureX
At this point I believe I've made my position quite clear.
Yes, saying that a human fetus is a human fetus really put your argument over the top.
Quote:
Just because you don't agree with me doesn't mean I've been ambiguous.
Your entire argument is rooted in ambiguity. When we discuss things like "what is a human being?" etc etc, you just say "I don't know and no one ever can".
It doesn't really do anything to advance the conversation. All you have highlighted is what you don't know. Now you're here claiming that you cannot be any clearer.
Hmm ok.
Quote:
I hope you will do some serious thinking about why it's important to respect other people's right to be wrong, and what it means to live in a country that's trying to hold freedom as one of it's most cherished ideals.
Straw man. People have the right to be wrong. I agree with this. This too, does absolutely nothing to advance the conversation. The same could be said about topic. You're apparently in some indifferent state of mind where throwing your hands up saying "well, it is what it is. People have a right to be wrong" is enough.
It's called apathy, my friend. Embrace it if you have no fight left in you.
God is not discoverable or demonstrable by purely scientific means, unfortunately for the scientifically minded. But that really proves nothing. It simply means that the wrong instruments are being used for the job. ~John Bertram Phillips
All you have highlighted is what you don't know. Now you're here claiming that you cannot be any clearer.
That's not true at all. I explained why I take the position that I do. And that has a lot to do with what we don't know, and the need to respect other opinions on the matter. You just keep ignoring this and trudging on ahead as though this were an abortion debate. I wasn't debating you. I was simply clarifying why I hold the position that I do. You don't understand that because you don't care about anyone else's position, or their reasoning, either. All you know or care about is that you're right.
Right?
Quote:
Originally Posted by WizardofOz
People have the right to be wrong. I agree with this. This too, does absolutely nothing to advance the conversation.
It would if you could listen, as well as talk.
Quote:
Originally Posted by WizardofOz
The same could be said about topic. You're apparently in some indifferent state of mind where throwing your hands up saying "well, it is what it is. People have a right to be wrong" is enough.
I am not God. I do not desire to judge, condemn, or control the world or it's people. Obviously, you're having difficulty appreciating this perspective.
Quote:
Originally Posted by WizardofOz
It's called apathy, my friend. Embrace it if you have no fight left in you.
It's called humility, my friend, you might want to try it, sometime. There are other ways to live besides fighting.
Slogan/motto:
"A day is as a thousand years" is about perspective. Two hours on the highway, to a five year old, seems like an eternity! To a 50 year old trucker, it's just the start of a good morning
At this point I believe I've made my position quite clear. I don't really know what else I can write to make it any clearer. Just because you don't agree with me doesn't mean I've been ambiguous.
I hope you will do some serious thinking about why it's important to respect other people's right to be wrong, and what it means to live in a country that's trying to hold freedom as one of it's most cherished ideals.
How free are you if your mother can decide to kill you with impunity?
♠
"So if I stand, let me stand on the promise that You will see me
through
And if i can't let me fall on the Grace that first brought me to you"
I'm guess this nonsense means you think some would rather be scraped out and torn apart than be born.
Is that what you wish happened to you?
Embryos aren't aware and would not even know if you gave them the choice, let alone be able to compute a decision on such a question, so your strawman is irrelevant.
But since you brought it up, do you ever wonder if the germs in your mouth would prefer not to be "scraped out" or if they would like to continue developing until they expire on their own? Do you ever wonder if potatoes would prefer not to be plucked out of the ground?
Yes, I know they are not "human," but the fact that they achieve the same level of consciousness that an embryo has illustrates my point that your strawman is nonsensical.
Obviously I am aware that embryos would not "rather" do anything since they don't do things like comprehend, so it is silly to ask me if I think they have a preference.
It's also pretty presumptuous for you to think YOU know what an embryo would prefer if they were aware.
Not to mention, since you think embryos are people, you shouldn't be making blanket statements, assuming each one would have the exact same preference as any other.
It's also presumptuous to assume that existence is objectively preferable to non-existence.
And to answer your last question, I'm glad I am alive, but I can't tell you if I personally prefer existence over non-existence simply because I am only aware while I exist, so I have never experienced non-existence, even though there was a point before I was born when I did not exist.
So, no, on a conscious level, having experienced life and enjoyed it, I do not wish that I had been aborted and not lived the life that I am aware of.
Do you understand why you should never call anyone a "moron"?
See above.
Quote:
By the rest of your post, it is apparent you just want to troll. You don't "love." You don't even know how to restrain yourself to the point of being decent: something that people who know love do without thought or effort.
I do it all the time. But I happen to love those little children you're so nonchalant about slaughtering that I will not, cannot, restrain my hate for you and your ideals.
Those who know perfect love also know perfect hatred:
"Do I not hate them, O Lord, who hate You?
And do I not loathe those who rise up against You?
I hate them with perfect hatred;
I count them my enemies."
-Psalm 139:21-22
Quote:
This is why I ignored you for so long. So the next time you start crying for attention, you should know why I went back to ignoring you. You'll have to go troll somebody else.
I don't want your attention, I simply wanted you to defend your accusation. And apparently you're too ignorant to do so. You should read a book, sometime; educate yourself.
Slogan/motto:
“Theist and atheist: The fight between them is as to whether God shall be called God or shall have some other name” S.B.
Reputation:
June 17th, 2012, 07:51 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by PureX
That's not true at all. I explained why I take the position that I do. And that has a lot to do with what we don't know, and the need to respect other opinions on the matter. You just keep ignoring this and trudging on ahead as though this were an abortion debate.
I respect that people have various opinions and I respect their right to have whatever opinion they may have. I am ignoring nothing.
Usually when dealing with the unknown, it is better to err on the side of caution. Have you ever heard that saying before? I choose to err on the side of caution when dealing with the unknown. You, on the other hand, throw caution to the wind.
"I don't know when a human becomes a human-being, so it's OK to allow legal abortion." -OR- "I don't know when a person endows personhood, so it's OK to allow legal abortion". etc etc.
Look at the stretches resorted to and the semantic games being played by the pro-choice side. elizabeth e is comparing cancer to a fetus, for crying out loud!
Quote:
Originally Posted by PureX
I wasn't debating you. I was simply clarifying why I hold the position that I do. You don't understand that because you don't care about anyone else's position, or their reasoning, either. All you know or care about is that you're right.
Right?
Not at all. You just seem to get grumpy when I don't agree with you. Sorry, I don't. Your position doesn't even make sense. You oppose all abortion but support abortion remaining legal. I too oppose abortion and take the logical conclusion that abortion should be illegal.
Complete this sentence: abortion should remain legal because _____________.
Quote:
Originally Posted by PureX
It would if you could listen, as well as talk. I am not God. I do not desire to judge, condemn, or control the world or it's people. Obviously, you're having difficulty appreciating this perspective.
It's called humility, my friend, you might want to try it, sometime. There are other ways to live besides fighting.
Do you agree with laws against murder or speeding or theft, etc? How is this any different? Are you playing God when you conclude that laws against murder are a good idea? Are you judging when you conclude that laws against theft are a good idea? Are you controlling the world and its people when you conclude that laws against speeding are a good idea?
How is this any different?
You've taken humility to a whole new level of apathy.
God is not discoverable or demonstrable by purely scientific means, unfortunately for the scientifically minded. But that really proves nothing. It simply means that the wrong instruments are being used for the job. ~John Bertram Phillips
Last edited by WizardofOz; June 17th, 2012 at 08:21 AM.
Reason: removed "so"
Slogan/motto:
“Theist and atheist: The fight between them is as to whether God shall be called God or shall have some other name” S.B.
Reputation:
June 17th, 2012, 08:29 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by elisabeth e
Embryos aren't aware and would not even know if you gave them the choice, let alone be able to compute a decision on such a question, so your strawman is irrelevant.
Neither is a comatose patient. Yet, the mother of a person in a coma cannot simply kill them.
Should we legalize the killing of comatose patients? Why or why not?
Quote:
Originally Posted by elisabeth e
But since you brought it up, do you ever wonder if the germs in your mouth would prefer not to be "scraped out" or if they would like to continue developing until they expire on their own? Do you ever wonder if potatoes would prefer not to be plucked out of the ground?
Yes, I know they are not "human," but the fact that they achieve the same level of consciousness that an embryo has illustrates my point that your strawman is nonsensical.
Good. Now that you have compared a human fetus to germs and potatoes, please answer my above question about comatose patients.
Quote:
Originally Posted by elisabeth e
Obviously I am aware that embryos would not "rather" do anything since they don't do things like comprehend, so it is silly to ask me if I think they have a preference.
And again. Why should it be illegal to kill someone who is in a coma? do they have a preference or a "rather"?
Quote:
Originally Posted by elisabeth e
It's also pretty presumptuous for you to think YOU know what an embryo would prefer if they were aware.
If you think a comatose individual would rather live than be killed, aren't you, by your standard, being presumptuous?
Ignore my entire post but answer one question: should it be legal or illegal to kill someone in a coma and why?
TIA
God is not discoverable or demonstrable by purely scientific means, unfortunately for the scientifically minded. But that really proves nothing. It simply means that the wrong instruments are being used for the job. ~John Bertram Phillips
Slogan/motto:
"A day is as a thousand years" is about perspective. Two hours on the highway, to a five year old, seems like an eternity! To a 50 year old trucker, it's just the start of a good morning
Neither is a comatose patient. Yet, the mother of a person in a coma cannot simply kill them.
Should we legalize the killing of comatose patients? Why or why not?
do they have a preference or a "rather"?
If you think a comatose individual would rather live than be killed, aren't you, by your standard, being presumptuous?
Ignore my entire post but answer one question: should it be legal or illegal to kill someone in a coma and why?
The culture should be in the habit of each person preparing for such an event, so they can make out a living will beforehand. Then we will know their preference.
If they haven't made their preference known in advance, society should not decide what to do. It should be determined by immediate family based on a number of qualifying factors, including, severity of the coma (there a certain levels of the comatose state, some of which the patient has levels of awareness), likelihood of recovery, whether or not there is brain activity, ect.
Like abortions, there is no blanket answer. Each case is different.
So, yes, it should be legal to kill someone is a coma.
Why? The social contract, or the purpose for considering the legality of an act, is dependent on how it benefits or harms society, and should be reserved for events that effect society as a whole.
Ending the life of a comatose patient is a private matter and should not be decided by the government.
Then again, comatose patients have at one point actually operated and functioned within society and have had an impact on members within the society, so taking them out of the equation is quite different than killing an embryo which has never been a part of society. Apart from the mother, sometimes the father, and the doctor, generally an abortion has no measurable impact on society, so comparing an abortion with killing a comatose patient is inconsistent.
Linear Mode
