• 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!

Four Fallacies of Abortion

Angel said:
Do you or do you not acknowledge a human being's natural right to life?
Click to expand...

You will not even define it or who decides what natural rights are and what are the limitations.

You decide natural rights are some sort of non defined unlimited thing....
 
year2late said:
So it is unlimited....by all means necessary?

Can you describe what this unlimited no circumstances right to life is?

I have no clue what you are talking about and how it would be applied in the real world.
Click to expand...
The natural right to life is a right every human being (and perhaps every living being) possesses independent of the law and custom of particular cultures or governments, a universal and inalienable right that inheres in human being by reason of its human nature.
 
Lursa said:
Do you believe that human = human being? Are they exactly synonymous in your belief?
Click to expand...
The word "human" as a noun (not as the adjective it was originally) is the bastardized form of "human being."
 
Angel said:
The word "human" as a noun (not as the adjective it was originally) is the bastardized form of "human being."
Click to expand...

So then the terms are equal *in your opinion* and they are interchangeable?

It's a 'yes or no' question.
 
Lursa said:
You'll have to prove there are natural rights then.

Because as people here have told you...many dont 'believe' in them. They are no more real than religion. Both are man-made constructs. People, like yourself, like to use natural rights as a 'workaround' when they know that their religious arguments will be dismissed as submission to a mythical being. But natural rights are still an appeal to a higher authority. Because:

Since rights are not inherited or genetic...they are not 'natural' in any biological sense. They are a man-made concept. Do other animals have a right to life? If so, why dont we recognize a right to life for them?

All rights are only "real" when acknowledged, formalized, and then protected/enforced by a society.
Click to expand...
If you wish to talk religion, join your fan Logician Man in the B&S forum for some clueless shenanigans. If you wish to discuss natural rights with me, then keep religion out of it. I have not so much as mentioned religion once in six threads and hundreds of posts in the Abortion forum.

Rights are inherited and genetic. So you're wrong going in here. And I don't have to "prove" anything, nor do you; what we must do is provide arguments.

Everything is a "man-made construct" or a human concept -- that's what reality is. Quit the quaglike nonsense that because concepts are human they refer to nothing real.

And this from you:
All rights are only "real" when acknowledged, formalized, and then protected/enforced by a society.
Click to expand...
is an assertion in need of an argument.
 
Lursa said:
So then the terms are equal *in your opinion* and they are interchangeable?

It's a 'yes or no' question.
Click to expand...
When "human" is used as a noun to mean "human being," yes, they are interchangeable.
 
Angel said:
The natural right to life is a right every human being (and perhaps every living being) possesses independent of the law and custom of particular cultures or governments, a universal and inalienable right that inheres in human being by reason of its human nature.
Click to expand...

So a woman sees her pregnancy as a threat to her well being and life....so she should be able to end her pregnancy.
 
Angel said:
Rights are inherited and genetic. So you're wrong going in here. And I don't have to "prove" anything, nor do you; what we must do is provide arguments.
Click to expand...
Great, then you should have no problem providing the science texts or links that prove it. And your claim is worthless in your argument unless you can support it. If it's science, there is scientific basis...proof. Please provide that...I am not going to just believe 'your opinions,' that's all you've been posting thus far.
 
Angel said:
If you wish to talk religion, join your fan Logician Man in the B&S forum for some clueless shenanigans. If you wish to discuss natural rights with me, then keep religion out of it. I have not so much as mentioned religion once in six threads and hundreds of posts in the Abortion forum.
Click to expand...

Dont be dishonest. I have seen you post on your religious beliefs many times. That's why I specifically wrote the following. It is my opinion, strongly supported by your own words in previous threads.

Lursa said:
You'll have to prove there are natural rights then.

Because as people here have told you...many dont 'believe' in them. They are no more real than religion. Both are man-made constructs. People, like yourself, like to use natural rights as a 'workaround' when they know that their religious arguments will be dismissed as submission to a mythical being. But natural rights are still an appeal to a higher authority. Because:
.
Click to expand...
 
Angel said:
And this from you:

is an assertion in need of an argument.
Click to expand...

Happy to...when you answer many of the direct questions I've asked.
Cue: more bobbing and weaving, yet no direct support of your arguments as requested.
 
Angel said:
When "human" is used as a noun to mean "human being," yes, they are interchangeable.
Click to expand...

Great and human=human being=Homo sapiens

I'll keep this on hand for future reference.

The 'being' entails no more significance than what can be classified by science: Human DNA. No qualities that are not found in any other higher mammals. No legal or supernatural qualities.

We can move on now. I will continue to use human but now I hope you will understand my use properly.
 
Angel said:
Rebuttal of a cartoon of natural rights?
Do you or don't you understand the concept of a natural right?
Click to expand...

There is no cartoon in my post that you responded to.

Your lack of rebuttal is noted.
 
Angel said:
The natural right to life is a right every human being (and perhaps every living being) possesses independent of the law and custom of particular cultures or governments, a universal and inalienable right that inheres in human being by reason of its human nature.
Click to expand...

Who gives us these so-called "natural rights"?
 
Scrabaholic said:
Who gives us these so-called "natural rights"?
Click to expand...

Every morning I find dead field mice on my veranda, killed by my cat. The natural right to life of these rodents is being violated!
 
Angel said:
If you wish to talk religion, join your fan Logician Man in the B&S forum for some clueless shenanigans. If you wish to discuss natural rights with me, then keep religion out of it. I have not so much as mentioned religion once in six threads and hundreds of posts in the Abortion forum.

Rights are inherited and genetic. So you're wrong going in here. And I don't have to "prove" anything, nor do you; what we must do is provide arguments.

Everything is a "man-made construct" or a human concept -- that's what reality is. Quit the quaglike nonsense that because concepts are human they refer to nothing real.

And this from you:

is an assertion in need of an argument.
Click to expand...

Have you posted //// abortion must remain legal /// ? YES, you have..... Have you posted you are a Roman Catholic ? YES, you have. Is it fair to ask you if your stance that ///abortion must remain legal /// is compatible with the Roman Catholic's stance on abortion when discussing abortion ? Of course it is .
 
Lursa said:
Great and human=human being=Homo sapiens

I'll keep this on hand for future reference.

The 'being' entails no more significance than what can be classified by science: Human DNA. No qualities that are not found in any other higher mammals. No legal or supernatural qualities.

We can move on now. I will continue to use human but now I hope you will understand my use properly.
Click to expand...
This:
The 'being' entails no more significance than what can be classified by science: Human DNA. No qualities that are not found in any other higher mammals. No legal or supernatural qualities.
Click to expand...
is a terribly muddleheaded inference. It follows from nothing that preceded it. And it is virtually incoherent.

You can move on now, is right. The business of logic and semantics is not for you. Knitting perhaps.
 
Lursa said:
Dont be dishonest. I have seen you post on your religious beliefs many times. That's why I specifically wrote the following. It is my opinion, strongly supported by your own words in previous threads.
Click to expand...
Threads in Religion or B&S forum. Not a word about religion from me in the Abortion forum -- because my moral argument on abortion is not a religious argument.
So take your bull**** for a hike and air it out; it stinks.
 
Lursa said:
Great, then you should have no problem providing the science texts or links that prove it. And your claim is worthless in your argument unless you can support it. If it's science, there is scientific basis...proof. Please provide that...I am not going to just believe 'your opinions,' that's all you've been posting thus far.
Click to expand...
Being human is genetic and inherited; this is basic genetic taxonomy.
The instinct for self-preservation is genetic and inherited in all animal life.
The natural instinct to preserve life is the physical aspect of the moral right to life.
 
Logician Man said:
Have you posted //// abortion must remain legal /// ? YES, you have..... Have you posted you are a Roman Catholic ? YES, you have. Is it fair to ask you if your stance that ///abortion must remain legal /// is compatible with the Roman Catholic's stance on abortion when discussing abortion ? Of course it is .
Click to expand...
Quit trolling. I'll not take your bait. And get out of my face: we have nothing to talk about, you and I.
 
Lursa said:
Happy to...when you answer many of the direct questions I've asked.
Cue: more bobbing and weaving, yet no direct support of your arguments as requested.
Click to expand...
You don't have an argument in you, ma'am. You've got accumulated talking points from years of unthinking acceptance of activist jargon and cant, and that's all you've got.
You're basically a sweet-tempered and nice person, so your fallacies are easy to take -- unlike the many misinformed assholes infesting internet chat -- and some of your shortcomings, like the repetition of points already refuted, are merely cases of zeal helpless in the midst of the fray, and the humanity in me goes out to the humanity in you.
 
Angel said:
Quit trolling. I'll not take your bait. And get out of my face: we have nothing to talk about, you and I.
Click to expand...

You dropped my name, dude in a post to a third party ( post # 330 ). I have every right to ask you if your posted stance that -----> /// abortion must remain legal /// is compatible with your Roman Catholic faith/belief system ( which you also posted freely, and of your own accord.) Don't want to be asked fair questions ? Don't put forth information that begs fair questions to be asked. This is a debate forum, not your private playground where you get to dictate to others what they may, or may not ask others about information they decide to put forth for all to see and address, which is precisely what you did of your own free will.
 
Last edited:
Angel said:
This:

is a terribly muddleheaded inference. It follows from nothing that preceded it. And it is virtually incoherent.
.
Click to expand...


Here, let me spell it out for you:

1. The 'being' entails no more significance than what can be classified by science: Human DNA.

2. It does not infer or imply any qualities that are not found in any other higher mammals.

3. "Human" does not refer to any legal definition, only biological definition (human DNA).

4. "Being" does not imply any sacred or "special" characterizations distinct from any other higher mammals.


They seem a bit redundant but I wanted to be very clear. Do you concur with the above?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom