• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

So prolifers want to "get back to the Hippocratic oath"? Fine. Then do it proper

Phys251 said:
I made my position crystal clear, which is that prolifers love to misuse the Hippocratic Oath in order to suit their own agenda. A couple of y'all denied this.
Click to expand...

Quote the posts where these "denials" happened.
 
Harshaw said:
Nope. You have not shown the posts where these "denials" happened, because they did not happen.
Click to expand...

I'm not going to do your homework for you. This thread is not even thirty posts in, and the posts are not terribly long yet, so I'm sure that you can find where I addressed this. That is, of course, if you want to believe that what I wrote is what I wrote, which apparently is the main topic of discussion right now, because the words that you see, I see, and Josie sees are clearly not the same.
 
Phys251 said:
I've already repeated my point three times for you. That you are willfully refusing to acknowledge it is your problem and your problem alone.
Click to expand...

No, you changed your point. Your original point is what I'm arguing here.

Phys251 said:
From time to time, we hear from the prolifers that we need to get back to the Hippocratic oath: "First, do no harm." That never appears anywhere in any accepted version of the oath. Or, "I will not give to a woman a pessary to cause abortion." OK fine, if you're going to play that game, let's set aside for the moment just how frequently doctors tend to overlook their women patients' needs when it comes to childbirth, whether that be the desire to have no C-section except as a last resort, or particular accommodations for the newborn, or pushing mothers out of hospitals before they may be ready, etc. No, if we really want to "get back to the Hippocratic oath," then we should go back to the first line of the original oath:

"I swear by Apollo the Healer, by Asclepius, by Hygieia, by Panacea, and by all the gods and goddesses, making them my witnesses, that I will carry out, according to my ability and judgment, this oath and this indenture."

No Jesus. No Jehova Rapha (God the healer). Nope, we're going old school, all the way back to the Greek gods.

So, prolifers, if you still want to make the Hippocratic oath as a part of your arsenal, the very least you could do is actually read it first and not insert your Jesus into something that never had it in the first place.
Click to expand...


Josie said:
I honestly can't think of one instance where a pro-lifer said that Jesus had anything to do with the Hippocratic Oath.
Click to expand...

You have yet to show me a pro-lifer who has inserted Jesus into the HO.

Phys251 said:
Yes or no: Do prolifers tend to use their interpretation of the Hippocratic oath in order to support their views? Yes or no.
Click to expand...

Sure. Just as pro-choicers do.

Phys251 said:
Also yes or no: Does there exist a negative correlation in this country between religious views and support for abortion rights? Yes or no.
Click to expand...

Already answered in my previous reply.

Your logic is that since pro-lifers are mostly religious people, anything they use to defend their opposition to abortion rights must be something they believe is religious or has something to do with religion. But you've yet to show me ONE PERSON who connects Jesus to the Hippocratic Oath. It isn't true just because you say it is, you know.
 
Phys251 said:
I'm not going to do your homework for you. This thread is not even thirty posts in, and the posts are not terribly long yet, so I'm sure that you can find where I addressed this. That is, of course, if you want to believe that what I wrote is what I wrote, which apparently is the main topic of discussion right now, because the words that you see, I see, and Josie sees are clearly not the same.
Click to expand...

You have nothing, because such "denials" do not exist in this thread. :shrug:

And yes, being a short thread, no one else will have trouble seeing that, as well as your constant gross distortions of what people actually did say.
 
Josie said:
No, you changed your point. Your original point is what I'm arguing here.


[/B][/U]


You have yet to show me a pro-lifer who has inserted Jesus into the HO.
Click to expand...

I'm not gonna waste any more time trying to defend a point that I never made. If you want to continue dishonestly accusing me of making it, keep on keeping on, but it is time we return to the bigger debate issue. Which is:

Sure. Just as pro-choicers do.
Click to expand...

Good! So we agree there.

Already answered in my previous reply.
Click to expand...

Where you said:

I've never claimed that opposition to abortion has no correlation to religion.
Click to expand...

Which I will take to mean agreement. If so, good. Baby steps. Now, to this:

Your logic is that since pro-lifers are mostly religious people, anything they use to defend their opposition to abortion rights must be something they believe is religious or has something to do with religion. But you've yet to show me ONE PERSON who connects Jesus to the Hippocratic Oath. It isn't true just because you say it is, you know.
Click to expand...

No, it's not that hard to understand. By your own words, you agree that there exists an anti-abortion == religion link, and a use of the Oath by prolifers. Therefore, logically, we can conclude that there exists a religious element by prolifers to the invocation of the Oath. If that doesn't make sense, it's similar to how creationists use their own personal interpretation of the Second Law of Thermodynamics. Religion correlates with creationism, and it is the creationists who deliberately misuse the 2nd Law as a weapon to support their views.

Make sense now, or do you still require an explanation?
 
Phys251 said:
I'm not gonna waste any more time trying to defend a point that I never made. If you want to continue dishonestly accusing me of making it, keep on keeping on, but it is time we return to the bigger debate issue. Which is:



Good! So we agree there.



Where you said:



Which I will take to mean agreement. If so, good. Baby steps. Now, to this:



No, it's not that hard to understand. By your own words, you agree that there exists an anti-abortion == religion link, and a use of the Oath by prolifers. Therefore, logically, we can conclude that there exists a religious element by prolifers to the invocation of the Oath. If that doesn't make sense, it's similar to how creationists use their own personal interpretation of the Second Law of Thermodynamics. Religion correlates with creationism, and it is the creationists who deliberately misuse the 2nd Law as a weapon to support their views.

Make sense now, or do you still require an explanation?
Click to expand...

Of COURSE you tried to imply that "prolifers" somehow insert "Jesus" into the Oath. Your OP makes no sense otherwise.

So, not only do you grossly misrepresent what others say, you lie about what you yourself say.

Lathet, rinse, repeat.
 
Phys251 said:
I'm not gonna waste any more time trying to defend a point that I never made.
Click to expand...

You deny saying what you said in the OP? Weird, dude.

Phys251 said:
No Jesus. No Jehova Rapha (God the healer). Nope, we're going old school, all the way back to the Greek gods.

So, prolifers, if you still want to make the Hippocratic oath as a part of your arsenal, the very least you could do is actually read it first and not insert your Jesus into something that never had it in the first place.
Click to expand...


Phys251 said:
No, it's not that hard to understand. By your own words, you agree that there exists an anti-abortion == religion link, and a use of the Oath by prolifers. Therefore, logically, we can conclude that there exists a religious element by prolifers to the invocation of the Oath.
Click to expand...

No. That would mean ANYTHING pro-lifers use to debate abortion has a religious element ---- and it doesn't. Biology 101 isn't religious. The Hippocratic Oath isn't religious. Models of the stages of gestation aren't religious. Scientific research about the development of the fetus isn't religious. Photographs of aborted or prematurely born fetuses aren't religious. Ultrasounds aren't religious.

Phys251 said:
If that doesn't make sense, it's similar to how creationists use their own personal interpretation of the Second Law of Thermodynamics. Religion correlates with creationism, and it is the creationists who deliberately misuse the 2nd Law as a weapon to support their views.

Make sense now, or do you still require an explanation?
Click to expand...

I understand that it make sense in YOUR head, but it's still untrue. I'm a Christian and a pro-lifer and I've never once in my life thought that Jesus had anything to do with the Hippocratic Oath --- nor have I ever heard a pro-lifer say that either. And, since you can't seem to find one either, this thread is pretty much done.
 
Josie said:
You deny saying what you said in the OP? Weird, dude.

[/U]No. That would mean ANYTHING pro-lifers use to debate abortion has a religious element ---- and it doesn't. Biology 101 isn't religious. The Hippocratic Oath isn't religious. Models of the stages of gestation aren't religious. Scientific research about the development of the fetus isn't religious. Photographs of aborted or prematurely born fetuses aren't religious. Ultrasounds aren't religious.
Click to expand...

Damn. You can't or won't even make a simple logical connection. Oh well, it was worth a try. :shrug: And oh yeah, before you try for like the fiftieth time to deny that said connection exists...

I understand that it make sense in YOUR head, but it's still untrue. I'm a Christian and a pro-lifer and I've never once in my life thought that Jesus had anything to do with the Hippocratic Oath --- nor have I ever heard a pro-lifer say that either. And, since you can't seem to find one either, this thread is pretty much done.
Click to expand...

First of all, thanks for admitting both. And note, not once did I accuse ALL prolife Christians of Using the Oath for their political purposes. Maybe you missed that, too, in the OP, particularly the first four words of it. But it is a thing that is done. As an ex-prolifer, I would know--I was one of many who did so. So your basic argument of "I know of none, therefore there are none" holds no water. Nice try.
 
Phys251 said:
Damn. You can't or won't even make a simple logical connection. Oh well, it was worth a try. :shrug: And oh yeah, before you try for like the fiftieth time to deny that said connection exists...
Click to expand...

Because it's not logical. I know you WANT it to be, though.

Phys251 said:
First of all, thanks for admitting both. And note, not once did I accuse ALL prolife Christians of Using the Oath for their political purposes. Maybe you missed that, too, in the OP, particularly the first four words of it. But it is a thing that is done. As an ex-prolifer, I would know--I was one of many who did so. So your basic argument of "I know of none, therefore there are none" holds no water. Nice try.
Click to expand...

The first four words were "from time to time" and then you proceeded to say "pro-lifers" do/say XYZ. "From time to time" doesn't mean "some pro-lifers". If you didn't mean ALL pro-lifers, fine. But it is implied in your OP.

Your basic argument of "pro-lifers are religious so everything they say has JEEZUS behind it" is unintelligent.
 
Phys251 said:
Damn. You can't or won't even make a simple logical connection. Oh well, it was worth a try. :shrug: And oh yeah, before you try for like the fiftieth time to deny that said connection exists...



First of all, thanks for admitting both. And note, not once did I accuse ALL prolife Christians of Using the Oath for their political purposes. Maybe you missed that, too, in the OP, particularly the first four words of it. But it is a thing that is done. As an ex-prolifer, I would know--I was one of many who did so. So your basic argument of "I know of none, therefore there are none" holds no water. Nice try.
Click to expand...

Here is what you said:

Phys251 said:
So, prolifers, if you still want to make the Hippocratic oath as a part of your arsenal, the very least you could do is actually read it first and not insert your Jesus into something that never had it in the first place.
Click to expand...

You said, in plain terms, that "prolifers" "insert their Jesus" into the Oath. You said it. Period.

And as to what you say your point "really" is, that "prolifers" invoke the Oath in anti-abortion arguments, not one person in this thread "denied" it, and you cannot show that anyone did.

This thread is a complete and utter fail for you. Spectacularly.
 
Josie said:
Because it's not logical. I know you WANT it to be, though.



The first four words were "from time to time" and then you proceeded to say "pro-lifers" do/say XYZ. "From time to time" doesn't mean "some pro-lifers". If you didn't mean ALL pro-lifers, fine. But it is implied in your OP.

Your basic argument of "pro-lifers are religious so everything they say has JEEZUS behind it" is unintelligent.
Click to expand...

WOW! You continue to make simple blunders! You are interpreting "from group X occasionally comes Y" as "all members of X say Y."
That is one of the worst logic fails I have ever seen anyone make on Debate Politics. Well done, Josie! :applaud
 
Phys251 said:
WOW! You continue to make simple blunders! You are interpreting "from group X occasionally comes Y" as "all members of X say Y."
That is one of the worst logic fails I have ever seen anyone make on Debate Politics. Well done, Josie! :applaud
Click to expand...

You said: "pro-lifers" --- not some pro-lifers or a small group of pro-lifers or many pro-lifers. If you meant "some pro-lifers" then you shouldn't have implied all pro-lifers. You painted with a broad brush and now you want to pretend you didn't. As I just said, if you MEANT some pro-lifers, that's fine. But don't pretend that *I'M* the one who made the mistake.

And this thread is done.
 
Josie said:
You said: "pro-lifers" --- not some pro-lifers or a small group of pro-lifers or many pro-lifers. If you meant "some pro-lifers" then you shouldn't have implied all pro-lifers. You painted with a broad brush and now you want to pretend you didn't. As I just said, if you MEANT some pro-lifers, that's fine. But don't pretend that *I'M* the one who made the mistake.

And this thread is done.
Click to expand...

It's too late. The words are yours, the blunders are yours, the responsibility is yours. You tried to falsify the OP, and I respect that, that's what good debate is for. But unfortunately for you, your logic mistakes caught up to you in the end.

Checkmate, I win, and better luck next time.
 
Phys251 said:
It's too late. The words are yours, the blunders are yours, the responsibility is yours. You tried to falsify the OP, and I respect that, that's what good debate is for. But unfortunately for you, your logic mistakes caught up to you in the end.

Checkmate, I win, and better luck next time.
Click to expand...

Good try, Phys. It's not my fault that your thread is a failure. Have a nice night.
 
Josie said:
Good try, Phys. It's not my fault that your thread is a failure. Have a nice night.
Click to expand...

Right back at ya! Lemme know when you're ready to do this proper.
 
Josie said:
Because it's not logical. I know you WANT it to be, though.



The first four words were "from time to time" and then you proceeded to say "pro-lifers" do/say XYZ. "From time to time" doesn't mean "some pro-lifers". If you didn't mean ALL pro-lifers, fine. But it is implied in your OP.

Your basic argument of "pro-lifers are religious so everything they say has JEEZUS behind it" is unintelligent.
Click to expand...

Without a qualifier such as "some" or "many" or "a few," the term "pro-lifers" is a universal term meaning "all."
 
Phys251 said:
Right back at ya! Lemme know when you're ready to do this proper.
Click to expand...

I never said anything improper in this thread. You're just pissy that you were schooled ..... again.
 
nota bene said:
Without a qualifier such as "some" or "many" or "a few," the term "pro-lifers" is a universal term meaning "all."
Click to expand...

You're gonna do this too? OK, let's see if you can figure out the logical mistake that Josie couldn't.

First of all, I think a recap of the first sentence of the OP is in order, since it has been distorted to all hell:

Phys251 said:
From time to time, we hear from the prolifers that we need to get back to the Hippocratic oath: "First, do no harm."
Click to expand...

Equivalently, "there exist statements from the group of people who identify as prolife that 'we need to get back to the Hippocratic oath: "First, do no harm."'" What you and Josie are trying to do is change "there exists" to "all."

It's a common mistake made in logic. It's one of the first things they go over in a class where logic is taught. Stripped down to its barest form, the mistake is very obvious, but sometimes people get caught up in their arguments and make them anyway. Ex., what you and Josie said.

Or are you suggesting that I said that literally every single prolifer makes the claim in question, literally every last one? Because that's the other dumb thing that Josie tried to do, and that was to claim that I said something that I categorically did not say. Is this where you prefer to let your argument die?
 
Josie said:
The overall theme of the Oath IS to do no harm.

The entire point of this thread was to call out pro-lifers for saying that Jesus has something do with the Hippocratic Oath. You made a really big deal out of it -- and hey -- you got TWO LIKES! However, you haven't shown one instance of a pro-lifer saying Jesus has anything to do with the Oath. You googled a couple words and then copied/pasted the first websites you saw that you thought might support your OP, but none of them did. How embarrassing for you.
Click to expand...

Just because someone clicks "like" doesn't mean they agree with every sentence in the post. I will "like" a post even if I agree with just some of it. Sometimes, I will "like" it to indicate I've read it, especially if it is a reply to me and I have nothing further to say/add.
 
Phys251 said:
You're gonna do this too? OK, let's see if you can figure out the logical mistake that Josie couldn't.

First of all, I think a recap of the first sentence of the OP is in order, since it has been distorted to all hell:



Equivalently, "there exist statements from the group of people who identify as prolife that 'we need to get back to the Hippocratic oath: "First, do no harm."'" What you and Josie are trying to do is change "there exists" to "all."

It's a common mistake made in logic. It's one of the first things they go over in a class where logic is taught. Stripped down to its barest form, the mistake is very obvious, but sometimes people get caught up in their arguments and make them anyway. Ex., what you and Josie said.

Or are you suggesting that I said that literally every single prolifer makes the claim in question, literally every last one? Because that's the other dumb thing that Josie tried to do, and that was to claim that I said something that I categorically did not say. Is this where you prefer to let your argument die?
Click to expand...

"there exists" doesn't exist in your OP. You keep arguing this when I already said that it's fine if that's what you meant, but that's not what you implied in your OP. I realize that you want to change the argument in this thread because you know you lost the other one. :)
 
Scrabaholic said:
Just because someone clicks "like" doesn't mean they agree with every sentence in the post. I will "like" a post even if I agree with just some of it. Sometimes, I will "like" it to indicate I've read it, especially if it is a reply to me and I have nothing further to say/add.
Click to expand...

Okay? What is your take on the OP?
 
Scrabaholic said:
Just because someone clicks "like" doesn't mean they agree with every sentence in the post. I will "like" a post even if I agree with just some of it. Sometimes, I will "like" it to indicate I've read it, especially if it is a reply to me and I have nothing further to say/add.
Click to expand...

I have "liked" posts I disagreed with - usually because in a sea of ugly responses the one I "liked" showed thoughtful reasoning (even though they were wrong:lamo)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom