| Author | Post |
|---|
J. Sloan
Dialogue Facilitator
| Joined: | Fri Sep 26th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 433 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: |  |
|
Posted: Fri Nov 28th, 2008 07:14 am |
|
http://www.l4l.org/library/mythfact.html
____________________
Slimmy soars with the eagles!
|
Aldaron
Dialogue Facilitator
| Joined: | Mon Jun 23rd, 2008 |
| Location: | Australia |
| Posts: | 1321 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: |   |
|
Posted: Fri Nov 28th, 2008 08:38 am |
|
You know, a few years ago my house was built. It had a unique plan. The prefab timber frame was unique to my house, and couldn't be put together into someone else's house. The combination of design, style, colours, shapes, roofing, windows and all the rest was completely unique.
So I guess when it was all lying on my block of land, it wasn't actually a pile of building materials, it was already a house.
Wow...*rolls eyes*
____________________
|
prodomal
Dialogue Facilitator
| Joined: | Wed Nov 26th, 2008 |
| Location: | Atlanta |
| Posts: | 360 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Fri Nov 28th, 2008 06:19 pm |
|
Why is so much attention given to the unborn when we have hundreds of thousands of suffering children in this country alone who are already born?
|
tiny thinker
Dialogue Facilitator
| Joined: | Fri Jul 25th, 2008 |
| Location: | Pennsylvania USA |
| Posts: | 62 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Fri Nov 28th, 2008 06:44 pm |
|
Why not give adequate attention to both (groups)?
____________________
Life does not accommodate you; it shatters you. Every seed destroys its container, or else there would be no fruition.-Florida Scott-Maxwell
|
prodomal
Dialogue Facilitator
| Joined: | Wed Nov 26th, 2008 |
| Location: | Atlanta |
| Posts: | 360 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Fri Nov 28th, 2008 07:33 pm |
|
tiny thinker wrote: Why not give adequate attention to both (groups)?
One has actual needs and actually exists. The other is hypothetical.
When I'm determining who to give my help to, I prefer to help those that are living and are in need now.
|
AyHyperbole
Dialogue Facilitator
| Joined: | Mon Nov 10th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 725 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Fri Nov 28th, 2008 07:35 pm |
|
prodomal wrote: Why is so much attention given to the unborn when we have hundreds of thousands of suffering children in this country alone who are already born?
Well, it's a philosophy of government.
Conservatives tend to dislike social programs and like criminal laws. You can't criminalize "being too poor to feed your two-year-old," but you can criminalize ending a pregnancy.
Most conservatives are either unaware of, or refuse to acknowledge, all the evidence that criminalizing abortion would not reduce the abortion rate and in practice would only kick people in desperate situations while they're down.
|
J. Sloan
Dialogue Facilitator
| Joined: | Fri Sep 26th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 433 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Fri Nov 28th, 2008 07:52 pm |
|
prodomal wrote: tiny thinker wrote: Why not give adequate attention to both (groups)?
One has actual needs and actually exists. The other is hypothetical.
When I'm determining who to give my help to, I prefer to help those that are living and are in need now.
Both have actual needs. A fetus is not hypothetical and is a living human being.
____________________
Slimmy soars with the eagles!
|
J. Sloan
Dialogue Facilitator
| Joined: | Fri Sep 26th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 433 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Fri Nov 28th, 2008 07:53 pm |
|
Aldaron wrote: You know, a few years ago my house was built. It had a unique plan. The prefab timber frame was unique to my house, and couldn't be put together into someone else's house. The combination of design, style, colours, shapes, roofing, windows and all the rest was completely unique.
So I guess when it was all lying on my block of land, it wasn't actually a pile of building materials, it was already a house.
Wow...*rolls eyes*
At the moment of conception, you do not have one part or parts changing from one thing to another -- you have a unique meeting and the joining of a DNA sequence that we call a human being.
____________________
Slimmy soars with the eagles!
|
J. Sloan
Dialogue Facilitator
| Joined: | Fri Sep 26th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 433 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Fri Nov 28th, 2008 08:00 pm |
|
AyHyperbole wrote: prodomal wrote: Why is so much attention given to the unborn when we have hundreds of thousands of suffering children in this country alone who are already born?
Well, it's a philosophy of government.
Conservatives tend to dislike social programs and like criminal laws. You can't criminalize "being too poor to feed your two-year-old," but you can criminalize ending a pregnancy.
Most conservatives are either unaware of, or refuse to acknowledge, all the evidence that criminalizing abortion would not reduce the abortion rate and in practice would only kick people in desperate situations while they're down.
Weak argument. Pro-Choicer Mary Anne Warren stated:
"the fact that restricting access to abortion has tragic side effects does not, in itself, show that the restrictions are unjustified, since murder is wrong regardless of the consequences of prohibiting it..." [1]
Last edited on Fri Nov 28th, 2008 08:01 pm by J. Sloan
____________________
Slimmy soars with the eagles!
|
prodomal
Dialogue Facilitator
| Joined: | Wed Nov 26th, 2008 |
| Location: | Atlanta |
| Posts: | 360 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Fri Nov 28th, 2008 08:14 pm |
|
J. Sloan wrote: prodomal wrote: tiny thinker wrote: Why not give adequate attention to both (groups)?
One has actual needs and actually exists. The other is hypothetical.
When I'm determining who to give my help to, I prefer to help those that are living and are in need now.
Both have actual needs. A fetus is not hypothetical and is a living human being.
One is suffering now, the other is not sentient. Wouldn't you rather relieve actual suffering?
Go down to the local orphanage and tell the children there that you'd like for them to have a home, but right now you're too busy saving the "unborn."
|
AyHyperbole
Dialogue Facilitator
| Joined: | Mon Nov 10th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 725 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Fri Nov 28th, 2008 08:29 pm |
|
J. Sloan wrote: AyHyperbole wrote: prodomal wrote: Why is so much attention given to the unborn when we have hundreds of thousands of suffering children in this country alone who are already born?
Well, it's a philosophy of government.
Conservatives tend to dislike social programs and like criminal laws. You can't criminalize "being too poor to feed your two-year-old," but you can criminalize ending a pregnancy.
Most conservatives are either unaware of, or refuse to acknowledge, all the evidence that criminalizing abortion would not reduce the abortion rate and in practice would only kick people in desperate situations while they're down.
Weak argument. Pro-Choicer Mary Anne Warren stated:
"the fact that restricting access to abortion has tragic side effects does not, in itself, show that the restrictions are unjustified, since murder is wrong regardless of the consequences of prohibiting it..." [1]
The majority of things that are wrong are not illegal. Laws inherently must be pragmatic.
Drinking oneself into a state where one is likely to cause harm to others, for example, is wrong - but banning the practice has proven to be ineffective and to cause damage to society.
And the reason we ruled against restrictive abortion laws in the first place is exactly that: they don't work, they punish well-meaning doctors, they're a danger to the health of women, and they encourage the spread of organized crime.
|
J. Sloan
Dialogue Facilitator
| Joined: | Fri Sep 26th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 433 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Fri Nov 28th, 2008 08:42 pm |
|
prodomal wrote: J. Sloan wrote: prodomal wrote: tiny thinker wrote: Why not give adequate attention to both (groups)?
One has actual needs and actually exists. The other is hypothetical.
When I'm determining who to give my help to, I prefer to help those that are living and are in need now.
Both have actual needs. A fetus is not hypothetical and is a living human being.
One is suffering now, the other is not sentient. Wouldn't you rather relieve actual suffering?
Go down to the local orphanage and tell the children there that you'd like for them to have a home, but right now you're too busy saving the "unborn."
One is killed purposely while the other is not. As another poster said, this is not an either/or situation -- both can and should be helped. Being numb to the unborn is just as morally deficient as not helping children who are starving (which is an issue close to my heart).
____________________
Slimmy soars with the eagles!
|
J. Sloan
Dialogue Facilitator
| Joined: | Fri Sep 26th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 433 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Fri Nov 28th, 2008 08:45 pm |
|
AyHyperbole wrote: J. Sloan wrote: AyHyperbole wrote: prodomal wrote: Why is so much attention given to the unborn when we have hundreds of thousands of suffering children in this country alone who are already born?
Well, it's a philosophy of government.
Conservatives tend to dislike social programs and like criminal laws. You can't criminalize "being too poor to feed your two-year-old," but you can criminalize ending a pregnancy.
Most conservatives are either unaware of, or refuse to acknowledge, all the evidence that criminalizing abortion would not reduce the abortion rate and in practice would only kick people in desperate situations while they're down.
Weak argument. Pro-Choicer Mary Anne Warren stated:
"the fact that restricting access to abortion has tragic side effects does not, in itself, show that the restrictions are unjustified, since murder is wrong regardless of the consequences of prohibiting it..." [1]
The majority of things that are wrong are not illegal. Laws inherently must be pragmatic.
Drinking oneself into a state where one is likely to cause harm to others, for example, is wrong - but banning the practice has proven to be ineffective and to cause damage to society.
And the reason we ruled against restrictive abortion laws in the first place is exactly that: they don't work, they punish well-meaning doctors, they're a danger to the health of women, and they encourage the spread of organized crime.
You are still left with a bad argument; a consenting adult who drinks and chooses to do so is not analogous to taking the life of an innocent human being. As noted above, murder would be wrong regardless of it's consequences. Simply because people choose to be irresponsible is not a justification for murder.
____________________
Slimmy soars with the eagles!
|
AyHyperbole
Dialogue Facilitator
| Joined: | Mon Nov 10th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 725 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Fri Nov 28th, 2008 08:55 pm |
|
J. Sloan wrote: AyHyperbole wrote: J. Sloan wrote: AyHyperbole wrote: prodomal wrote: Why is so much attention given to the unborn when we have hundreds of thousands of suffering children in this country alone who are already born?
Well, it's a philosophy of government.
Conservatives tend to dislike social programs and like criminal laws. You can't criminalize "being too poor to feed your two-year-old," but you can criminalize ending a pregnancy.
Most conservatives are either unaware of, or refuse to acknowledge, all the evidence that criminalizing abortion would not reduce the abortion rate and in practice would only kick people in desperate situations while they're down.
Weak argument. Pro-Choicer Mary Anne Warren stated:
"the fact that restricting access to abortion has tragic side effects does not, in itself, show that the restrictions are unjustified, since murder is wrong regardless of the consequences of prohibiting it..." [1]
The majority of things that are wrong are not illegal. Laws inherently must be pragmatic.
Drinking oneself into a state where one is likely to cause harm to others, for example, is wrong - but banning the practice has proven to be ineffective and to cause damage to society.
And the reason we ruled against restrictive abortion laws in the first place is exactly that: they don't work, they punish well-meaning doctors, they're a danger to the health of women, and they encourage the spread of organized crime.
You are still left with a bad argument; a consenting adult who drinks and chooses to do so is not analogous to taking the life of an innocent human being. As noted above, murder would be wrong regardless of it's consequences. Simply because people choose to be irresponsible is not a justification for murder.
And you're left with a bad definition: "taking the life of an innocent human being" is not the definition of murder. Otherwise, both our countries have a lot of soldiers who should be executed.
|
Merlin
Dialogue Facilitator
| Joined: | Tue Aug 21st, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 3113 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Fri Nov 28th, 2008 09:03 pm |
|
It's not like the church is supposed to help them either: Paul said that widows and unmarried women had to reach 50 before the church was supposed to aid them in any way. I presume the children were a package deal with the mothers in the no-help policy.
____________________
"Christians should go to church."
"... it would be better for her to tie a heavy rock around her neck and jump into the midddle of deep bayou than it would to lay a heavy guilt-trip on any of God's little ones . . ."
|
J. Sloan
Dialogue Facilitator
| Joined: | Fri Sep 26th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 433 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Fri Nov 28th, 2008 09:10 pm |
|
AyHyperbole wrote: J. Sloan wrote: AyHyperbole wrote: J. Sloan wrote: AyHyperbole wrote: prodomal wrote: Why is so much attention given to the unborn when we have hundreds of thousands of suffering children in this country alone who are already born?
Well, it's a philosophy of government.
Conservatives tend to dislike social programs and like criminal laws. You can't criminalize "being too poor to feed your two-year-old," but you can criminalize ending a pregnancy.
Most conservatives are either unaware of, or refuse to acknowledge, all the evidence that criminalizing abortion would not reduce the abortion rate and in practice would only kick people in desperate situations while they're down.
Weak argument. Pro-Choicer Mary Anne Warren stated:
"the fact that restricting access to abortion has tragic side effects does not, in itself, show that the restrictions are unjustified, since murder is wrong regardless of the consequences of prohibiting it..." [1]
The majority of things that are wrong are not illegal. Laws inherently must be pragmatic.
Drinking oneself into a state where one is likely to cause harm to others, for example, is wrong - but banning the practice has proven to be ineffective and to cause damage to society.
And the reason we ruled against restrictive abortion laws in the first place is exactly that: they don't work, they punish well-meaning doctors, they're a danger to the health of women, and they encourage the spread of organized crime.
You are still left with a bad argument; a consenting adult who drinks and chooses to do so is not analogous to taking the life of an innocent human being. As noted above, murder would be wrong regardless of it's consequences. Simply because people choose to be irresponsible is not a justification for murder.
And you're left with a bad definition: "taking the life of an innocent human being" is not the definition of murder. Otherwise, both our countries have a lot of soldiers who should be executed.
This is all you have in response? A bad definition? I did not give a definition of murder, I stated that there is a false analogy between a consenting adult who chooses to drink and taking the life of an innocent human being (which can be murder). I could rephrase my statement to say, "the unjustified taking of life of an innocent human". The point here is that your argument is a bad one (as are all pro-choice arguments).
____________________
Slimmy soars with the eagles!
|
AyHyperbole
Dialogue Facilitator
| Joined: | Mon Nov 10th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 725 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Fri Nov 28th, 2008 09:19 pm |
|
J. Sloan wrote: AyHyperbole wrote: J. Sloan wrote: AyHyperbole wrote: J. Sloan wrote: AyHyperbole wrote: prodomal wrote: Why is so much attention given to the unborn when we have hundreds of thousands of suffering children in this country alone who are already born?
Well, it's a philosophy of government.
Conservatives tend to dislike social programs and like criminal laws. You can't criminalize "being too poor to feed your two-year-old," but you can criminalize ending a pregnancy.
Most conservatives are either unaware of, or refuse to acknowledge, all the evidence that criminalizing abortion would not reduce the abortion rate and in practice would only kick people in desperate situations while they're down.
Weak argument. Pro-Choicer Mary Anne Warren stated:
"the fact that restricting access to abortion has tragic side effects does not, in itself, show that the restrictions are unjustified, since murder is wrong regardless of the consequences of prohibiting it..." [1]
The majority of things that are wrong are not illegal. Laws inherently must be pragmatic.
Drinking oneself into a state where one is likely to cause harm to others, for example, is wrong - but banning the practice has proven to be ineffective and to cause damage to society.
And the reason we ruled against restrictive abortion laws in the first place is exactly that: they don't work, they punish well-meaning doctors, they're a danger to the health of women, and they encourage the spread of organized crime.
You are still left with a bad argument; a consenting adult who drinks and chooses to do so is not analogous to taking the life of an innocent human being. As noted above, murder would be wrong regardless of it's consequences. Simply because people choose to be irresponsible is not a justification for murder.
And you're left with a bad definition: "taking the life of an innocent human being" is not the definition of murder. Otherwise, both our countries have a lot of soldiers who should be executed.
This is all you have in response? A bad definition? I did not give a definition of murder, I stated that there is a false analogy between a consenting adult who chooses to drink and taking the life of an innocent human being (which can be murder). I could rephrase my statement to say, "the unjustified taking of life of an innocent human". The point here is that your argument is a bad one (as are all pro-choice arguments).
There's no such thing as a perfect analogy, because the very concept of an analogy is that it compares dissimilar things. The analogy between, say, "a consenting adult who chooses to drink" and "a consenting adult who chooses to spray-paint a car" isn't perfect.
You're implying that the reason the analogy is flawed is that it's a matter of degree: that I'm comparing a petty wrong to murder.
But you haven't - and can't - establish that abortion is murder. Not without using an extremely non-standard definition. And adding the word "unjustified" is no help at all, because justification is entirely subjective.
Your original argument "it's wrong and therefore we should ban it" was no good, because we do not as a matter of policy ban things for being wrong. And your follow-up argument - "it's basically murder and therefore we should ban it" was no good either, because it doesn't fit any common definition of murder. You have to use your own, special, pro-life definition to get there.
And, intellectually, it is every bit as easy to claim that every soldier should be executed or imprisoned for murder or attempted murder than it is to claim the same of desperate unwed mothers.
|
tiny thinker
Dialogue Facilitator
| Joined: | Fri Jul 25th, 2008 |
| Location: | Pennsylvania USA |
| Posts: | 62 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Sat Nov 29th, 2008 02:09 am |
|
prodomal wrote: tiny thinker wrote: Why not give adequate attention to both (groups)?
One has actual needs and actually exists. The other is hypothetical.
When I'm determining who to give my help to, I prefer to help those that are living and are in need now.
Yes, of course, there is nothing living and growing in the uterus of a pregnant woman. It's just a speculation until something pops out of the vagina. Until then the idea that there is a developing human organism in the woman's body is just an educated guess. I suppose by this logic we should save a LOT of money by getting rid of/ceasing to encourage prenatal health care.
____________________
Life does not accommodate you; it shatters you. Every seed destroys its container, or else there would be no fruition.-Florida Scott-Maxwell
|
J. Sloan
Dialogue Facilitator
| Joined: | Fri Sep 26th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 433 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Sat Nov 29th, 2008 04:19 am |
|
There's no such thing as a perfect analogy, because the very concept of an analogy is that it compares dissimilar things. The analogy between, say, "a consenting adult who chooses to drink" and "a consenting adult who chooses to spray-paint a car" isn't perfect.
Saying your analogy is not perfect is an understatement -- it is a bad analogy.
You're implying that the reason the analogy is flawed is that it's a matter of degree: that I'm comparing a petty wrong to murder.
More than that -- that you are comparing what a consenting adult does to taking the life of an innocent human being.
But you haven't - and can't - establish that abortion is murder. Not without using an extremely non-standard definition. And adding the word "unjustified" is no help at all, because justification is entirely subjective.
Murder is defined as:
the crime of unlawfully killing a person especially with malice aforethought
If the human being inside the womb is a person, then abortion is murder. Now the law says one thing, whether the law is right or wrong is what is being disputed.
Your original argument "it's wrong and therefore we should ban it" was no good, because we do not as a matter of policy ban things for being wrong. And your follow-up argument - "it's basically murder and therefore we should ban it" was no good either, because it doesn't fit any common definition of murder. You have to use your own, special, pro-life definition to get there.
My argument is that there is a human person in the womb and that taking her life is murder. Murder is one prime example where we do have policies based on what is right or wrong. I do not have to use any special definition of murder, I only have to argue that the human being inside the womb is a person and that the law is wrong about the status of that human being.
And, intellectually, it is every bit as easy to claim that every soldier should be executed or imprisoned for murder or attempted murder than it is to claim the same of desperate unwed mothers.
It is not even close -- another bad analogy from you.
____________________
Slimmy soars with the eagles!
|
prodomal
Dialogue Facilitator
| Joined: | Wed Nov 26th, 2008 |
| Location: | Atlanta |
| Posts: | 360 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Sat Nov 29th, 2008 06:11 am |
|
tiny thinker wrote: prodomal wrote: tiny thinker wrote: Why not give adequate attention to both (groups)?
One has actual needs and actually exists. The other is hypothetical.
When I'm determining who to give my help to, I prefer to help those that are living and are in need now.
Yes, of course, there is nothing living and growing in the uterus of a pregnant woman. It's just a speculation until something pops out of the vagina. Until then the idea that there is a developing human organism in the woman's body is just an educated guess. I suppose by this logic we should save a LOT of money by getting rid of/ceasing to encourage prenatal health care.
Clearly you are unfamiliar with hydatidiform moles. Look it up sometime.
"...an abnormal form of pregnancy, characterized by the presence of a hydatidiform mole (or hydatid mole, mola hytadidosa), an anomalous growth containing a nonviable embryo which implants and proliferates within the uterus.[1] A hydatidiform mole is removed upon diagnosis because there is some risk that it may develop into choriocarcinoma, a form of cancer."
Last edited on Sat Nov 29th, 2008 06:19 am by prodomal
|
Current time is 11:48 am | Page: 1 2   |
|
