Muenkel 0
Recommended Posts
pajarito 0
Quote
an oxymoron, there is no 'unborn' child. It is not a child, it is a fetus. It will/would not/ could not ever become a child without the enviroment to develop in, and that is the standard.
At the point at which it could live on its own (ithout artificial support)it is a 'child', with realized potential, and has the same rights as any other individual.
Until then it requires the support and consent of its host to grow, and the rights of the host take precedence. You seem to think its ok to force your morality on the mother ( the host) and require her to allow that organism to develop. If your morality viewed the wart as an expression of divine favor you'd be arguing it has rights apart from its host too....
its rather simple, edically verifiablle, repeatable standard, that you cant seem to grasp.
So, by your definition of when there is life considered worth protecting, you must also be in favor of euthanasia. What about a person who can’t live without life support (i.e. breathing machine, feeding tube, etc.)? Does that person then cease to be human enough to “let live” because he/she can’t do it for themselves? Do you just begin to “call them by another name” so as to make the killing more justifiable or acceptable to most? Just like, instead of calling the ‘unborn’ a child, you call it a parasitic organism? I'm very glad that you don't determine standards for everyone.
pajarito 0
QuoteQuote
an oxymoron, there is no 'unborn' child. It is not a child, it is a fetus. It will/would not/ could not ever become a child without the enviroment to develop in, and that is the standard.
At the point at which it could live on its own (ithout artificial support)it is a 'child', with realized potential, and has the same rights as any other individual.
Until then it requires the support and consent of its host to grow, and the rights of the host take precedence. You seem to think its ok to force your morality on the mother ( the host) and require her to allow that organism to develop. If your morality viewed the wart as an expression of divine favor you'd be arguing it has rights apart from its host too....
its rather simple, edically verifiablle, repeatable standard, that you cant seem to grasp.
So, by your definition of when there is life considered worth protecting, you must also be in favor of euthanasia. What about a person who can’t live without life support (i.e. breathing machine, feeding tube, etc.)? Does that person then cease to be human enough to “let live” because he/she can’t do it for themselves? Do you just begin to “call them by another name” so as to make the killing more justifiable or acceptable to most? Just like, instead of calling the ‘unborn’ a child, you call it a parasitic organism? I'm very glad that you don't determine standards for everyone.
You'd probably come back and say something like the life of elderly or incapacitated person would then be under the control of his/her immediate family and that they would then make the decision whether to "pull the plug" or not. Assuming that there weren't stated wishes of the elderly person prior to them becoming incapacitated (DNR or do recussetate) (I guess a judge could also declare them unable to make those decisions as well). The immediate family would then be kind of in the position of the woman considering an abortion. In the case of the elderly incapacitated person, their life expectancy is probably pretty dim. In the case of the unborn child, their whole life is in front of them, if allowed to live and they aren't terminated for selfish reasons....just thinking out loud. I'm arguing with myself now....is that bad....I keep telling the voices in my head no but sometimes they take over....
pajarito 0
QuoteYou'd probably come back and say something like the life of elderly or incapacitated person would then be under the control of his/her immediate family and that they would then make the decision whether to "pull the plug" or not. Assuming that there weren't stated wishes of the elderly person prior to them becoming incapacitated (DNR or do recussetate) (I guess a judge could also declare them unable to make those decisions as well). The immediate family would then be kind of in the position of the woman considering an abortion. In the case of the elderly incapacitated person, their life expectancy is probably pretty dim. In the case of the unborn child, their whole life is in front of them, if allowed to live and they aren't terminated for selfish reasons....just thinking out loud. I'm arguing with myself now....is that bad....I keep telling the voices in my head no but sometimes they take over....
You might then come back and say that the elderly person, if they were in their right mind prior to their present condition, made the choice to DNR or to allow the immediate family to make the decision when the time came. I'd say that the unborn baby never got the chance to determine that or make a decision. In all probability, if left alone (I know there are special cases), the baby would be born and grow up just like you and me. I'm quite sure, if it was possible to go back in time, that they wouldn't take their mother's situation for "choosing to abort" into consideration and decide to go along with it elliminating the possibility of their existence. Is that "out there?" Sorry...
billvon 3,111
.thumb.jpg.4bb795e2eaf21b8b300039a5e1ec7f92.jpg)
>First of all Bill, it may surprise you but I am NOT for war.
Sorry, didn't mean to single you out; yours was just the last post on the topic.
Sorry, didn't mean to single you out; yours was just the last post on the topic.
Muenkel 0
Quote>First of all Bill, it may surprise you but I am NOT for war.
Sorry, didn't mean to single you out; yours was just the last post on the topic.
No problem. What I do when I don't want to single someone out is delete the person's name in my reply.
Blues,
Chris
_________________________________________
Chris
kallend 2,146
QuoteQuoteYour death penalty argument only works if the system is infallible, and no human system is infallible.
Our system is the best we've got. We can only do the best we can as imperfect people living in a society. I believe, despite the fact that it isn't perfect, the death penalty is unfortunate but necessary.
Other western nations have demonstrated conclusively that it is not necessary.
By perpetuating it, the US is in such good company: Iran, North Korea, Sudan, Yemen, Saudi Arabia, Communist China...
...
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
pajarito 0
No personal attack intended.
None now exists in your post. Again, go after what they say, not who you think they are.
None now exists in your post. Again, go after what they say, not who you think they are.
RoadRash 0
QuoteDude...you and Zennister are two of the most "un-American" US haters that I've every heard. And your both US citizens. No personal attack intended. Just an observation. I can't remember anthing good that you've said about your country in these forums. How does that feel?...
![[:/]](/uploads/emoticons/dry.png "[:/]"){kind=small}
I agree! They prefer to dwell on the negatives as opposed to doing something to try and change it.
What a shame...
~R+R
~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~
Fly the friendly skies...^_^...})ii({...^_~...
Fly the friendly skies...^_^...})ii({...^_~...
sometimes just speaking out is enough to spark change.
wmw999 2,587
Neither of them is the least bit unamerican. They both use a style of argumentation that picks on a piece of an argument and attacks it; generally, they pick on an important part of it, which is good.
Part of being an American is being able to disagree, and to try to convince others of what you think. They don't call others stupid, they generally don't categorize beliefs that they disagree with as stupid, and they certainly don't accuse people who disagree with them of being unamerican.
Pointing out the weaknesses in arguments can help others to make their arguments stronger. Of course, people don't always agree on what's a weak or strong point. Notice how some people are quick to label anything they disagree with as unamerican, weak, stupid, ungodly, or whatever.
Being an American doesn't mean holding a certain set of beliefs. It means having the freedom to hold the beliefs you want, to work towards them, and to have others do the same for theirs.
Wendy W.
Also an American
Part of being an American is being able to disagree, and to try to convince others of what you think. They don't call others stupid, they generally don't categorize beliefs that they disagree with as stupid, and they certainly don't accuse people who disagree with them of being unamerican.
Pointing out the weaknesses in arguments can help others to make their arguments stronger. Of course, people don't always agree on what's a weak or strong point. Notice how some people are quick to label anything they disagree with as unamerican, weak, stupid, ungodly, or whatever.
Being an American doesn't mean holding a certain set of beliefs. It means having the freedom to hold the beliefs you want, to work towards them, and to have others do the same for theirs.
Wendy W.
Also an American
There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)
Quotesometimes just speaking out is enough to spark change.
It certainly is. The biggest and most sustainable changes are the ones that grow from within. Slowly, over time.
Like losing weight - you get a big impact when you starve yourself but you have a much better chance at success when you make small measured changes to your diet and exercise habits.
The power of talking about things is WAY underestimated. I think we inherently know this - and why we are here doing it right now.
AMEN! to Wendy!
Action expresses priority. - Mahatma Ghandi
QuoteAMEN! to Wendy!
I second that.
Man, oh, man. Kallend and Zenister point out many flaws. I disagree with them most of the time.
But, their points are usually valid, though I often disagree. They are pretty good at stirring up emotion, which actually helps them in their arguments.
Let's be objective and reasonable here.
My wife is hotter than your wife.
But, their points are usually valid, though I often disagree. They are pretty good at stirring up emotion, which actually helps them in their arguments.
Let's be objective and reasonable here.
My wife is hotter than your wife.
pajarito 0
Ok...ok...point taken. I stand corrected. I tried to steer around a personal attack but I guess it wasn't good enough. Lo siento mucho! 
Chris
_________________________________________
Chris
Share this post
Link to post
Share on other sites