|
|
Post by Cody™ on Jan 22, 2019 13:56:18 GMT
Yet you don’t be care about the bodily autonomy of the pre-born baby. There's no such thing as a pre-born baby. A fetus doesn't have rights. Even if it did, it's rights would not trump those of a person whose body it was using. I've used this analogy before : suppose person A has a heart attack. Person B agrees to an operation which will connect person A's circulatory system to person B's. So person B's heart pumps for both of them. (I'm not saying this is currently possible. It's just a hypothetical to demonstrate the principle.) After a time, person B changes his mind. He wants person A disconnected. With no hearts or heart machines available, this will mean that person A will die. My view is that person B has a right to bodily autonomy which allows him to disconnect his body from person A, even if it costs A his life. Person A also has a right to bodily autonomy, which also allows him him to be disconnected from B if he wants to be. However, his right to bodily autonomy does not allow him to force B to remain connected against B's wishes. He can control his own body, he cannot control other peoples. If we took the position that one person's "right to life" trumped other people's right to bodily autonomy, it would have drastic consequences. For example, there is a shortage of organs for transplant. An overwhelming "right to life" would mean that Doctors would be justified in kidnapping people off the street and forcing them to donate kidneys, lungs, parts of their liver, etc - anything you could remove from a person without killing them. Obviously we don't do that, because we accept that people have a right to control their own bodies and that this right does not vanish just because another person needs their body. So no, proclaiming some "right to life" of a fetus doesn't do anything to make abortion less justified. First of all the word fetus comes from the Latin word meaning “young child”. Second once we grant that fetus’(young child) are human beings, which biologically they are. It should settle the question of their right to live. The right to live doesn’t increase with age and size. Otherwise that would mean toddlers and adolescents have less right to live than adults. As for your little hypothetical scenario. Comparing a babies rights to a mother’s rights is unequal. Because what is at stake in abortion is the mother’s lifestyle, as opposed to the babies life. The most reasonable thing for society is to expect an adult to live temporarily with an inconvenience if the only alternative is killing a child. |
|
|
|
Post by clusium on Jan 22, 2019 14:25:43 GMT
God Gave humanity something known as Free Will, meaning we can either be with Him, or not. Hence it was humanity's fault not to live up to God's Will. Do you really think that I wouldn't be familiar with the typical Christian attempt to get around the morality of God's actions? You already acknowledge that you are aware that I used to be a Christian. So you don't have to give me the standard, tired lines of reasoning that don't actually address my point. I'm interested in having another "free will" debate because free will is irrelevant. I'd argue that there is actually no free will even possible in Christianity at all. So we come to an immediate impasse once we inject the red-herring of free will into the discussion. We are talking specifically about the actions of God. And the reason it's important to not get sidetracked with other things is because no amount of human free will can ever subvert the will of God. According to Christianity, EVERYTHING happens according to "God's will" and his will will be done. So free will (even if I were to accept that there was such a thing) is now an irrelevancy! Whatever exists in the universe is ultimately the responsibility of God alone if you believe that he created everything. This would include "free will" (and anything that results from it)! When it comes to the Egyptians, or the Greeks, or the Romans (or all of the other races existing in other parts of the world that the bible conveniently ignores like the Chinese, and the Mayans, and Aztec, etc), does "free will" explain in any way why the Hebrew God never interacted with any of them for thousands of years? And if your answer is yes, then explain how free will could have even been a factor with people who had no evidence of God's existence, despite it being within his power to interact with them. It is precisely because it is humanity that chose to sin, which caused Christ to Suffer so. Does "humanity" include the Hebrews, whom you believe are God's chosen people? Did they also choose to sin? Were they also the descendants of sinners? Who says that it is not a reasonable belief? You? I find it very reasonable, as have all Christians for 2,000 years, right to this very day, continue to do so. So the answer to that is YES, I say it's unreasonable and I'm using my argument to demonstrate WHY it is unreasonable. I don't care that a lot of people have traditionally accepted something that is demonstrably unreasonable for thousands of years. That is an appeal to popularity, or an appeal to tradition (both logical fallacies). Neither the truth, nor reasonableness of a claim is impacted in any way by how many people accept the claim as true. No, that is not my forced interpretation of Sacred Scripture. That is simple logic of the afore-mentioned Scripture. It is neither simple, nor logical for aforementioned reasons that I gave. You do not consider Amnon raping Tamar a crime?!?!? What I consider is irrelevant! The question is, is there any evidence that GOD considers it a crime. The fact that he ended up being murdered says nothing about whether that act was criminal. Able was murdered by Cain for having a better offering; that doesn't imply that having the better offering is against God. There is a difference between God's Will & God's Pleasure. God Allows things to happen, but, He Is not necessarily Pleased with the outcome, hence, we have free will. God Did not Interact with the nations outside of Israel, until His Son Came, precisely because of that - His Son had Not yet Come!! Until He Sent His Messiah into the world, He Focused SOLELY on the Jews, precisely, because He Planned on Sending His Son!! Yes, the Hebrews were sinners. Yes, God Considers rape a GRAVE SIN. Abel was murdered, but, God PUNISHED Cain for his acts. |
|
|
|
Post by Isapop on Jan 22, 2019 14:37:09 GMT
Yet you don’t be care about the bodily autonomy of the pre-born baby. There's no such thing as a pre-born baby. A fetus doesn't have rights. Even if it did, it's rights would not trump those of a person whose body it was using. I've used this analogy before : suppose person A has a heart attack... Your analogy is another version of the "violinist" analogy from 1971's "A Defense Of Abortion" by Judith Thomson: You wake up in the morning and find yourself back to back in bed with an unconscious violinist. A famous unconscious violinist. He has been found to have a fatal kidney ailment, and the Society of Music Lovers has canvassed all the available medical records and found that you alone have the right blood type to help. They have therefore kidnapped you, and last night the violinist's circulatory system was plugged into yours, so that your kidneys can be used to extract poisons from his blood as well as your own. [If he is unplugged from you now, he will die; but] in nine months he will have recovered from his ailment, and can safely be unplugged from you.[4]
Thomson says that you can now permissibly unplug yourself from the violinist even though this will cause his death: this is due to limits on the right to life, which does not include the right to use another person's body, and so by unplugging the violinist you do not violate his right to life but merely deprive him of something—the use of your body—to which he has no right. "f you do allow him to go on using your kidneys, this is a kindness on your part, and not something he can claim from you as his due."[5]
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Defense_of_Abortion
Even though I'm pro-choice, I don't find this analogy convincing. The critical difference is that the violinist is an intruder from without, trespassing, while a fetus is in its natural place, a woman's body, where it began its life. (A topic worthy of its own thread)
|
|
|
|
Post by Catman 猫的主人 on Jan 22, 2019 15:44:43 GMT
Catman would make "Don't ever be mean to cats" the first commandment.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 22, 2019 16:18:15 GMT
First of all the word fetus comes from the Latin word meaning “young child”. So? Not for me. "Human" doesn't matter to me. "Person" matters to me. That's what is at stake in the hypothetical, too. A's life versus B's right to live a lifestyle where he's not lying on a table pumping blood for another person 24/7. But it's not the woman's 'lifestyle', it's her right to control of her own body. No, that's the most reasonable thing if we operate on your personal values and assumptions. Allowing abortions is the most reasonable thing if we operated on my personal values and assumptions. Currently, both of our societies are closer to my position than yours. And this all began when you accused me of hypocrisy. Hypocrisy is acting contrary to one's claimed beliefs. Whilst I don't expect that you will agree with my position on abortion and murder, if you are honest you will at least have to admit that I'm being consistent in those beliefs, and am thus not being hypocritical. Of course, I don't expect you to be honest, either. But I'd love to be proved wrong. |
|
|
|
Post by Cody™ on Jan 22, 2019 16:43:17 GMT
@graham
Actually you’re being a textbook example of a hypocrite. You say you agree with the commandment thou shalt not kill on the one hand. But on the other you’re perfectly fine with a woman killing a pre-born human being out of pure inconvinience.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 22, 2019 16:46:51 GMT
@graham Actually you’re being a textbook example of a hypocrite. You say you agree with the commandment thou shalt not kill on the one hand. But on the other you’re perfectly fine with a woman killing a pre-born human being out of pure unconvinience. I said I agree with the commandment "Thou shalt not kill" meaning that you shouldn't kill a person. Something I thought was rather obvious. At your prompting, I changed it to "Thou shalt not kill any born person". So where's the hypocrisy, Cody? Point it out. |
|
|
|
Post by Cody™ on Jan 22, 2019 16:49:24 GMT
@graham Actually you’re being a textbook example of a hypocrite. You say you agree with the commandment thou shalt not kill on the one hand. But on the other you’re perfectly fine with a woman killing a pre-born human being out of pure unconvinience. I said I agree with the commandment "Thou shalt not kill" meaning that you shouldn't kill a person. Something I thought was rather obvious. At your prompting, I changed it to "Thou shalt not kill a born human being". So where's the hypocrisy, Cody? Point it out. The hypocrisy is that when you got called out on your hypocrisy you conveniently decided to move the goalpost in order to look slightly less hypocritical. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 22, 2019 16:51:36 GMT
I said I agree with the commandment "Thou shalt not kill" meaning that you shouldn't kill a person. Something I thought was rather obvious. At your prompting, I changed it to "Thou shalt not kill a born human being". So where's the hypocrisy, Cody? Point it out. The hypocrisy is that when you got called out for your hypocrisy you conveniently decided to move the goalpost No, I decided to reword what I'd said to clarify the original meaning. So it's still hypocritical? In what way is it hypocritical, Cody? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 22, 2019 21:36:06 GMT
Sounds very pro-life even if not intentional lol  Bodily autonomy is why I support the right to have an abortion. I figured, but anyone can use the bodily autonomy phrase to try to justify either side since it’s ambiguous. I think it actually sounds more anti abortion based on how its purpose is to protect those rights to all people, and abortion doesn’t do that. Maybe change it to “Women have the right to kill their unborn baby.” |
|
|
|
Post by Cody™ on Jan 22, 2019 22:03:43 GMT
I would remove the "Honour thy father and thy mother" And change it do "Only honour thy father and mother if they are good parents" Good article addressing this very argument. www.luke173ministries.org/537996 |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 22, 2019 22:13:32 GMT
Bodily autonomy is why I support the right to have an abortion. I figured, but anyone can use the bodily autonomy phrase to try to justify either side since it’s ambiguous. I don't think it is, for reasons I outlined above. That doesn't work for me because it shifts the focus from the general principle to one specific result of that principle. My motivation in crafting the rule was not to allow abortions. Rather my motivation was to enforce bodily autonomy for people. That this would allow abortions is a side effect, not the purpose of the rule. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 22, 2019 22:23:24 GMT
Notice that Cody hasn't been able to come up with a reason why my statements are hypocritical.
Notice that he also hasn't retracted the accusation.
I'm confident in predicting that he won't, either. If anything we'll probably get another emotional tantrum.
|
|
|
|
Post by Cody™ on Jan 22, 2019 23:38:44 GMT
Notice that Cody hasn't been able to come up with a reason why my statements are hypocritical. Notice that he also hasn't retracted the accusation. I'm confident in predicting that he won't, either. If anything we'll probably get another emotional tantrum. You are a hypocrite plain and simple. You said you’re against killing. When I pointed out your inconsistency in squaring that with your pro-choice stance you backtracked and and tried to justify your opinion by changing it mean only “born persons” should not be killed. Like that somehow makes it any less immoral. When science hasn’t even determined whether or not a fetus is a person. You also dismissed the fact that a fetus is a human being, and all human beings should have the fundamental right to life. You basically resort to every twisted excuse in the book to convince yourself that women should have the right to kill their unborn babies. |
|
|
|
Post by Cody™ on Jan 22, 2019 23:44:37 GMT
There's no such thing as a pre-born baby. A fetus doesn't have rights. Even if it did, it's rights would not trump those of a person whose body it was using. I've used this analogy before : suppose person A has a heart attack... Your analogy is another version of the "violinist" analogy from 1971's "A Defense Of Abortion" by Judith Thomson: You wake up in the morning and find yourself back to back in bed with an unconscious violinist. A famous unconscious violinist. He has been found to have a fatal kidney ailment, and the Society of Music Lovers has canvassed all the available medical records and found that you alone have the right blood type to help. They have therefore kidnapped you, and last night the violinist's circulatory system was plugged into yours, so that your kidneys can be used to extract poisons from his blood as well as your own. [If he is unplugged from you now, he will die; but] in nine months he will have recovered from his ailment, and can safely be unplugged from you.[4]
Thomson says that you can now permissibly unplug yourself from the violinist even though this will cause his death: this is due to limits on the right to life, which does not include the right to use another person's body, and so by unplugging the violinist you do not violate his right to life but merely deprive him of something—the use of your body—to which he has no right. "f you do allow him to go on using your kidneys, this is a kindness on your part, and not something he can claim from you as his due."[5]
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Defense_of_Abortion
Even though I'm pro-choice, I don't find this analogy convincing. The critical difference is that the violinist is an intruder from without, trespassing, while a fetus is in its natural place, a woman's body, where it began its life. (A topic worthy of its own thread)
I’ve tried to explain that one to him before. He somehow thinks it’s “irrelevant” to the meaning of the analogy. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 23, 2019 0:23:57 GMT
I figured, but anyone can use the bodily autonomy phrase to try to justify either side since it’s ambiguous. I don't think it is, for reasons I outlined above. That doesn't work for me because it shifts the focus from the general principle to one specific result of that principle. My motivation in crafting the rule was not to allow abortions. Rather my motivation was to enforce bodily autonomy for people. That this would allow abortions is a side effect, not the purpose of the rule. If that is your purpose than I can assure it will be misinterpreted by many and can even be seen as an anti-abortion argument for the reason I said. It's also kind of shady to say you support the right to have an abortion yet write out a law that only indirectly implies the allowance of it based on one's interpretation of the phrase. Almost like it was intentionally wrote for others to find that loop hole from how it's written. Why not just make laws that directly state what is allowed/not allowed? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 23, 2019 0:31:57 GMT
I don't think it is, for reasons I outlined above. That doesn't work for me because it shifts the focus from the general principle to one specific result of that principle. My motivation in crafting the rule was not to allow abortions. Rather my motivation was to enforce bodily autonomy for people. That this would allow abortions is a side effect, not the purpose of the rule. If that is your purpose than I can assure it will be misinterpreted by many Anything can be misinterpreted. It's not possible to draft a statement so clear that it can't be misinterpreted. That's what I did. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 23, 2019 0:40:27 GMT
Notice that Cody hasn't been able to come up with a reason why my statements are hypocritical. Notice that he also hasn't retracted the accusation. I'm confident in predicting that he won't, either. If anything we'll probably get another emotional tantrum. You are a hypocrite plain and simple. You said you’re against killing.When I pointed out your inconsistency in squaring that with your pro-choice stance you backtracked and and tried to justify your opinion by changing it mean only “born persons” should not be killed. Once again : clarification is not hypocrisy. And once again : you claimed I was still being hypocritical AFTER I clarified what I'd said. I asked how it is. So the above is irrelevant. The issue isn't whether it's moral, the issue is whether it is hypocritical. To show it's hypocritical, you'd need to show a contradiction. You haven't. Both of these things are irrelevant to whether my views are hypocritical or not. I get that you think I'm wrong, I get that you think I'm some evil monster. I think the same about you. But you also accused me of hypocrisy, and I'm asking you in what way I'm being hypocritical. You don't seem able to answer that. Oh? So you believe that American soldiers are immoral for killing their enemies, Cody? All those troops in world War II who stopped the Nazis, every one of them immoral? You believe that capital punishment is immoral? You believe that god himself is immoral because of the numerous people you believe he has killed? How amazing! Why do you worship a god who is so immoral? Ah, the emotional tantrum begins. Allow me to retort in kind; you basically resort to every twisted excuse in the book to convince yourself that every woman should be a slave. What a monster. |
|
|
|
Post by Isapop on Jan 23, 2019 0:47:49 GMT
Your analogy is another version of the "violinist" analogy from 1971's "A Defense Of Abortion" by Judith Thomson: You wake up in the morning and find yourself back to back in bed with an unconscious violinist. A famous unconscious violinist. He has been found to have a fatal kidney ailment, and the Society of Music Lovers has canvassed all the available medical records and found that you alone have the right blood type to help. They have therefore kidnapped you, and last night the violinist's circulatory system was plugged into yours, so that your kidneys can be used to extract poisons from his blood as well as your own. [If he is unplugged from you now, he will die; but] in nine months he will have recovered from his ailment, and can safely be unplugged from you.[4]
Thomson says that you can now permissibly unplug yourself from the violinist even though this will cause his death: this is due to limits on the right to life, which does not include the right to use another person's body, and so by unplugging the violinist you do not violate his right to life but merely deprive him of something—the use of your body—to which he has no right. "f you do allow him to go on using your kidneys, this is a kindness on your part, and not something he can claim from you as his due."[5]
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Defense_of_Abortion
Even though I'm pro-choice, I don't find this analogy convincing. The critical difference is that the violinist is an intruder from without, trespassing, while a fetus is in its natural place, a woman's body, where it began its life. (A topic worthy of its own thread)
I’ve tried to explain that one to him before. You did? I didn't notice, but then again, I hadn't looked over your comments all that carefully. Now that you say this, I went back and looked again. I still don't see anything that seems even close to what I said. (Maybe you could quote for me what you are referring to.)
|
|
|
|
Post by Cody™ on Jan 23, 2019 0:55:58 GMT
I’ve tried to explain that one to him before. You did? I didn't notice, but then again, I hadn't looked over your comments all that carefully. Now that you say this, I went back and looked again. I still don't see anything that seems even close to what I said. (Maybe you could quote for me what you are referring to.)
It was on much older separate thread where he used an almost identical analogy. Found it: |
|
