Omniscient
Banned
- Joined
- Jul 3, 2020
- Messages
- 2,114
- Reaction score
- 431
- Location
- Canada
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Centrist
Well, they are wrong. It is not murder.
calling someone wrong changes nothing
Well, they are wrong. It is not murder.
You first sentence is glib and pointless sophistry. Your second is a statement of the obvious. Think 'trees'. Trees existed before there were words for them - thousands of words in thousands of different languages. They existed before our ancestors (who were of course persons) learned to speak and invent words.
An excellent set of propositions, IF we were having a philosophical debate about the reality of ideals.
But since the point of this thread is to have a discussion based on provable facts, I think that argument immediately runs out of ammunition.
Calling someone wrong changes nothing.
practical people like facts and links. philosophers don't, they use pure reason. a philosopher prides himself on his ability to entertain either side of any issue, and his ability to change his mind to the winning side, in his quest for the ultimate truth.
It would be an interesting exercise to develop a surgical/medical method to transplant any fetus into the body of any other consenting adult - male or female. Once that procedure is perfected, the entire issue would be solved. Everyone who believes in the sanctity of the fetus can offer to carry one to term. All those who oppose a woman's reproductive rights over that of a fetus can finally put their body where their mouth is and "save" the life of the unborn. It would be a WIN - WIN - (win) situation.
It would be an interesting exercise to develop a surgical/medical method to transplant any fetus into the body of any other consenting adult - male or female. Once that procedure is perfected, the entire issue would be solved. Everyone who believes in the sanctity of the fetus can offer to carry one to term. All those who oppose a woman's reproductive rights over that of a fetus can finally put their body where their mouth is and "save" the life of the unborn. It would be a WIN - WIN - (win) situation.
This is the barely coherent and grammatically inept speech of a man who desperately wants to be able to claim that he "cured coronavirus."
That's it, in a nutshell. When we do get a handle on this crisis, he wants to be able to pull out footage and declare "I called it! I said use this! I said try this! I told them to do this, it was my idea!" He's just doing it with lots of stupid stuff because he doesnt want to miss an opportunity. He's afraid 'the big one' will be mentioned and he wont get credit for it.
It's all about declaring himself the savior of the cv crisis and we'll hear all about it, esp in his campaign. (Which is basically each of his press briefings these days) --- Lursa
pure reason - In a real-World debate? If we're to argue facts & concrete actions, doesn't that rule out pure reason?
ability to change his mind to the winning side Why would a philosopher be concerned about being on the winning side? What philosophical advantage (pardon the expression, it's what comes to hand) accrues to the philosopher who happens to be on the winning side?
Please explain how winning side and ultimate truth are related. I don't see it myself, but perhaps I'm not thinking metaphysically enough?
Posting a link to support your rebuttal certainly does.
if society provides welfare to survive then you can have a child without imminent threat to your survival, which means abortion doesn't need to be done for your survival, which makes the abortion more of a convenience so to speak. republicans tend to also want to remove all welfare. which would then allow some mothers to get abortions and plead self defense. but republicans could offer loans to mothers, so they can survive through pregnancy. and pay it back later.
It would only be solved if the woman who was pregnant consented to the procedure to have it removed. She could still opt for an abortion (or to have it).
Same with the oft-imagined 'artificial wombs,' they may be an option but the same issue exists...only if the woman consents to the removal procedure. For starters, wouldn't she need to be assured that legally she would not be held financially or otherwise responsible ever for a child that came of the procedure? If not, then abortion would still be preferable if she didn't want or couldn't afford a kid.
Two stupid people spamming links back and forth accomplishes nothing.
What people need to be careful about is making sure the websites are for information only, written by experts, and obviously unbiased. "Spamming links" occurs when two stupid people look for and post only what they want to read.
No matter how good a link is its useless if people have no depth of thought.
If the pregnant woman needs an abortion for a medical reason, her consent would be very easy to get because then it is a matter of saving both lives or only one life.
This is the barely coherent and grammatically inept speech of a man who desperately wants to be able to claim that he "cured coronavirus."
That's it, in a nutshell. When we do get a handle on this crisis, he wants to be able to pull out footage and declare "I called it! I said use this! I said try this! I told them to do this, it was my idea!" He's just doing it with lots of stupid stuff because he doesnt want to miss an opportunity. He's afraid 'the big one' will be mentioned and he wont get credit for it.
It's all about declaring himself the savior of the cv crisis and we'll hear all about it, esp in his campaign. (Which is basically each of his press briefings these days) --- Lursa
It would only be solved if the woman who was pregnant consented to the procedure to have it removed. She could still opt for an abortion (or to have it).
Same with the oft-imagined 'artificial wombs,' they may be an option but the same issue exists...only if the woman consents to the removal procedure. For starters, wouldnt she need to be assured that legally she would not be held financially or otherwise responsible ever for a child that came of the procedure? If not, then abortion would still be preferable if she didnt want or couldnt afford a kid.
Let's move back in time. When is the earliest a new life should be called a human being, person, or baby strictly from your POV, regardless of what the law says?
For those of us who oppose abortion because of our faith: The Bible tells us to make Disciples! Nowhere does it tell us to make laws or political noise.
If we truly believe in Salvation by grace; how can we negate grace by trying to place others under law? If we obey Scripture, and address the energy we spend making political noise to making disciples, there will be far fewer abortions. Women of faith don't abort.
This is the barely coherent and grammatically inept speech of a man who desperately wants to be able to claim that he "cured coronavirus."
That's it, in a nutshell. When we do get a handle on this crisis, he wants to be able to pull out footage and declare "I called it! I said use this! I said try this! I told them to do this, it was my idea!" He's just doing it with lots of stupid stuff because he doesnt want to miss an opportunity. He's afraid 'the big one' will be mentioned and he wont get credit for it.
It's all about declaring himself the savior of the cv crisis and we'll hear all about it, esp in his campaign. (Which is basically each of his press briefings these days) --- Lursa
Let's move back in time. When is the earliest a new life should be called a human being, person, or baby strictly from your POV, regardless of what the law says?
I am pro choice until the point of conception.
With free effective contraception so readily available; most unwanted pregnancies are a choice in themselves. Most rights come with responsibilities. Why should reproductive rights be different. The fact that women are born with a womb does NOT give them a unique license to behave irresponsibly.
I certainly agree that if the activity that resulted in conception was not the woman's choice; publicly funded abortion should be available to her.
If I fail to pay attention to my driving, I have no right to expect taxpayers to pay for my repairs: and if a woman chooses not to use available contraceptives, she has no reason to expect taxpayers to pay for her choice.