Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 23, 2019 1:18:30 GMT
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)
In the violinist analogy that would be correct. But my analogy isn't like that, a fact Cody apparently failed to comprehend. I specifically stated that B freely consented to be attached to A. A is not an invader at all. My point is that in a situation like that, even if you agreed in the first place you still have the right to change your mind.
In fact if anything it's overly generous, since in my analogy B specifically intended to be attached - equivalent to a woman who specifically aimed to be pregnant. But many women who become pregnant never intended to be. Their consent was for sex, with the intention of having some fun without getting pregnant. And of course some women don't even consent to that - there are rape victims out there who are pregnant against their will. That's much closer to the violinist analogy, of course. I wonder if Cody thinks women should be forced to carry and give birth to their rapist's baby? I bet he does. |
|
|
|
Post by Isapop on Jan 23, 2019 1:47:56 GMT
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 specifically stated that B freely consented to be attached to A. A is not an invader at all. My point is that in a situation like that, even if you agreed in the first place you still have the right to change your mind.
Even if B initially consented, that doesn't materially separate it from the violinist example. Once B wants severance, that recasts A now as an invader from without, like the violinist. And that makes them different from the fetus, who rests where its existence began. I credit people who think so as at least being consistent in their views. Pro-life people who allow exceptions for rape and incest can't explain how they think it's OK to punish the "child" for the crime of the father.
My own pro-choice views stem from the fact that I just don't think of an embryo as a person, any more than I consider a pan of batter to be a cake.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 23, 2019 2:03:34 GMT
I specifically stated that B freely consented to be attached to A. A is not an invader at all. My point is that in a situation like that, even if you agreed in the first place you still have the right to change your mind.
Even if B initially consented, that doesn't materially separate it from the violinist example. Once B wants severance, that recasts A now as an invader from without, like the violinist. And that makes them different from the fetus, who rests where its existence began. I don't see that that's a difference that makes a difference to the principle involved. Whether an invader from without or an invader from within, what does it matter? Why does that mean you suddenly lose your rights? Yes, but they generally don't like it because it really highlights the emotionally nasty side of their particular viewpoint. For those whose views turn on emotion it's a powerful argument. Of course something similar can be said about the pro-choice argument; there are people there whose views turn on emotion, which is why anti-abortion people so frequently resort to emotive arguments.
And I don't disagree with that, it's just not the deciding factor for me. But it opens up the question of just when does an embryo become a person? I mean, the fetus is pretty much the same five minutes after birth as it is five minutes before, so I assume your answer isn't birth. So when? Viability? When the brain forms? Me, I'd say there's no specific point - personhood emerges in a gradual process. But the law can't work that way, the law has to draw a specific line. So where do you think that line should be? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 23, 2019 3:21:10 GMT
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. "A woman has the right to have an abortion" is pretty clear. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 23, 2019 3:30:47 GMT
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. "A woman has the right to have an abortion" is pretty clear. Yeah? "A woman has a right to have an abortion, but nobody has a right to perform one. Performing abortions is hereby banned. Women can still have the right to them, though." |
|
|
|
Post by Isapop on Jan 23, 2019 3:32:55 GMT
Even if B initially consented, that doesn't materially separate it from the violinist example. Once B wants severance, that recasts A now as an invader from without, like the violinist. And that makes them different from the fetus, who rests where its existence began. I don't see that that's a difference that makes a difference to the principle involved. Whether an invader from without or an invader from within, what does it matter? Why does that mean you suddenly lose your rights? You're not an invader if there's no other place you came from. You're not a trespasser if you're resting in the natural place where you came into existence. And once the fetus achieves personhood, its right to live in its natural place of origin outweighs the mother's right to kill it. That's the critical question. The thing to keep in mind is that the question of when personhood begins is not a matter of ascertainable fact. We'll never find the "factual answer" by acquiring more and more data about a fetus. Personhood is a label that society, by consensus, agrees to either confer or withhold. So, where I might personally assign the label is less important than where a solid majority is willing to agree to. Once that agreement is reached and put into law, abortion is much easier to figure out: prior to personhood, abortion is treated as a routine medical procedure (in other words, no hassles). Commencing with personhood, abortion is essentially illegal (exceptions for those rare life endangering cases). |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 23, 2019 3:42:30 GMT
You're not an invader if there's no other place you came from. You're not a trespasser if you're resting in the natural place where you came into existence. I disagree. You're a trespasser if you're in a place without the permission of the legal owner. Whether you came into existence there or not is irrelevant. And just like my analogy, the owner of a property can invite somebody into their property, then change their mind and evict them. And the moment they change their mind, you become a trespasser. Whether they came into existence there is irrelevant. Disagree with this, too. We don't have a right to live in our natural place of origin. I agree with this - as I said myself, the law has to draw a line and that's arbitrary, as are any age-related lines actually. Still, as a member of that society you have a voice in setting that line, right? So what's your take on it? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 23, 2019 4:25:14 GMT
"A woman has the right to have an abortion" is pretty clear. Yeah? "A woman has a right to have an abortion, but nobody has a right to perform one. Performing abortions is hereby banned. Women can still have the right to them, though." :/ |
|
|
|
Post by captainbryce on Jan 23, 2019 5:48:34 GMT
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!! You realize that's NOT an actual answer right? Ultimately it was God's decision for when he was going to send the Son. He could have sent the son sooner OR he could have interacted with ALL nations until he chose to send the son, but he chose NOT to. So the question of WHY is still open. Why was God playing favorites with one race of people, and ignoring the rest? Because through that action, he would have absolutely no cause to be upset with anything the people who he chose not to interact with were doing. Until He Sent His Messiah into the world, He Focused SOLELY on the Jews, precisely, because He Planned on Sending His Son!! Yeah, that's still NOT an answer. You basically said he didn't interact with them BECAUSE he didn't interact with them. The question of WHY is still open. Yes, the Hebrews were sinners. Then it's sad that your argument is full of this much kettle logic that you cannot see it. You initially said: " 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". Forgetting the fact that God would have known that free will runs contradictory to God's will, the simple fact that he chose not to interact with anyone outside of Israel invalidates your suggestion that people could choose to be with him. God was not with them, so how would they have even known about him, much less have any way of knowing how to be with him? Furthermore, you have offered no excuse for God's absence in the lives of the people of other nations while supposedly taking an active role in the society of the Israelites. Again, why is God playing favorites? If you acknowledge that the Hebrews were also sinners (just like everyone else), then God's actions in this regard become even more perplexing. It is precisely because it is humanity that chose to sin, which caused Christ to Suffer so. Yeah, but that didn't stop him from giving the Israelites "Commandments", with permission to enslave the people of other nations and orders to commit genocide against other nations. The Israelites also chose to sin (as you just acknowledged), yet God still chose to interact with them. Yes, God Considers rape a GRAVE SIN. So you keep saying, and yet have failed to demonstrate after given numerous opportunities. Abel was murdered, but, God PUNISHED Cain for his acts. That's not relevant to the issue. The fact that God SOMETIMES punishes murderers and SOMETIMES does not punish murderers isn't the issue. The issue is whether or not he ever punished a rapist. And there is no scriptural evidence that he ever has, and in fact there is much evidence that he does NOT condone the murder of a rapist. Earlier in the discussion, you tried to demonstrate that God condemns rape by quoting Deuteronomy passages that have to do with rape of a married woman (or a woman engaged to be married) indicating that the punishment was death. But you intentionally removed the context of "married" as being a relevant factor in the punishment. Even though the scripture says exactly why the punishment is death (adultery, not rape). Allow me to re-quote it for illustration: Deuteronomy 22:23-2623 If a man happens to meet in a town a virgin pledged to be married and he sleeps with her, 24 you shall take both of them to the gate of that town and stone them to death—the young woman because she was in a town and did not scream for help, and the man because he violated another man’s wife. You must purge the evil from among you. 25 But if out in the country a man happens to meet a young woman pledged to be married and rapes her, only the man who has done this shall die. 26 Do nothing to the woman; she has committed no sin deserving death. This case is like that of someone who attacks and murders a neighborThe part you left out was the scenario about what the punishment is supposed to be if the rape victim is NOT married. Because the following verses just few more down illustrate just how immoral your God is, by offering one of the most immoral commandments in scripture: Deuteronomy 22:28-2928 If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, 29 he shall pay her father fifty shekels of silver. He must marry the young woman, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives.Your God doesn't give a shit about the rape victim. Because a woman's only "worth" (other than to please men and bear children for them) is to provide financial security for her father! That's why the payment is made to him, because the violation of her daughter means that he can no longer marry her off due to the deplorable morality of how the men of God's chosen people look upon rape victims with disgust. The proof that God doesn't care about rape victims is that part of the man's "punishment" for raping her is forcing the victim to spend the rest of her life married to the man who raped her! And I suspect that this is the reason why you chose to omit that part of the scripture from your argument! And mind you, this only applies to the Hebrew people. It has NOTHING to do with rape victims of the "heathen nations" from which the Hebrews are allowed to own slaves! You really need to learn more about your bible before you try to defend it because your morals are better than those of the god you are defending. |
|
|
|
Post by clusium on Jan 23, 2019 5:58:03 GMT
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!! You realize that's NOT an actual answer right? Ultimately it was God's decision for when he was going to send the Son. He could have sent the son sooner OR he could have interacted with ALL nations until he chose to send the son, but he chose NOT to. So the question of WHY is still open. Why was God playing favorites with one race of people, and ignoring the rest? Because through that action, he would have absolutely no cause to be upset with anything the people who he chose not to interact with were doing. Until He Sent His Messiah into the world, He Focused SOLELY on the Jews, precisely, because He Planned on Sending His Son!! Yeah, that's still NOT an answer. You basically said he didn't interact with them BECAUSE he didn't interact with them. The question of WHY is still open. Yes, the Hebrews were sinners. Then it's sad that your argument is full of this much kettle logic that you cannot see it. You initially said: " 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". Forgetting the fact that God would have known that free will runs contradictory to God's will, the simple fact that he chose not to interact with anyone outside of Israel invalidates your suggestion that people could choose to be with him. God was not with them, so how would they have even known about him, much less have any way of knowing how to be with him? Furthermore, you have offered no excuse for God's absence in the lives of the people of other nations while supposedly taking an active role in the society of the Israelites. Again, why is God playing favorites? If you acknowledge that the Hebrews were also sinners (just like everyone else), then God's actions in this regard become even more perplexing. It is precisely because it is humanity that chose to sin, which caused Christ to Suffer so. Yeah, but that didn't stop him from giving the Israelites "Commandments", with permission to enslave the people of other nations and orders to commit genocide against other nations. The Israelites also chose to sin (as you just acknowledged), yet God still chose to interact with them. Yes, God Considers rape a GRAVE SIN. So you keep saying, and yet have failed to demonstrate after given numerous opportunities. Abel was murdered, but, God PUNISHED Cain for his acts. That's not relevant to the issue. The fact that God SOMETIMES punishes murderers and SOMETIMES does not punish murderers isn't the issue. The issue is whether or not he ever punished a rapist. And there is no scriptural evidence that he ever has, and in fact there is much evidence that he does NOT condone the murder of a rapist. Earlier in the discussion, you tried to demonstrate that God condemns rape by quoting Deuteronomy passages that have to do with rape of a married woman (or a woman engaged to be married) indicating that the punishment was death. But you intentionally removed the context of "married" as being a relevant factor in the punishment. Even though the scripture says exactly why the punishment is death (adultery, not rape). Allow me to re-quote it for illustration: Deuteronomy 22:23-2623 If a man happens to meet in a town a virgin pledged to be married and he sleeps with her, 24 you shall take both of them to the gate of that town and stone them to death—the young woman because she was in a town and did not scream for help, and the man because he violated another man’s wife. You must purge the evil from among you. 25 But if out in the country a man happens to meet a young woman pledged to be married and rapes her, only the man who has done this shall die. 26 Do nothing to the woman; she has committed no sin deserving death. This case is like that of someone who attacks and murders a neighborThe part you left out was the scenario about what the punishment is supposed to be if the rape victim is NOT married. Because the following verses just few more down illustrate just how immoral your God is, by offering one of the most immoral commandments in scripture: Deuteronomy 22:28-2928 If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, 29 he shall pay her father fifty shekels of silver. He must marry the young woman, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives.Your God doesn't give a shit about the rape victim. Because a woman's only "worth" (other than to please men and bear children for them) is to provide financial security for her father! That's why the payment is made to him, because the violation of her daughter means that he can no longer marry her off due to the deplorable morality of how the men of God's chosen people look upon rape victims with disgust. The proof that God doesn't care about rape victims is that part of the man's "punishment" for raping her is forcing the victim to spend the rest of her life married to the man who raped her! And I suspect that this is the reason why you chose to omit that part of the scripture from your argument! And mind you, this only applies to the Hebrew people. It has NOTHING to do with rape victims of the "heathen nations" from which the Hebrews are allowed to own slaves! You really need to learn more about your bible before you try to defend it because your morals are better than those of the god you are defending. He Chose to Send His Son, at the time in which He Did, because it was the Perfect TIME to do so - right when humanity was it's most sadistic, in terms of killing others. Christ Died the Most Shameful of Deaths, out of Pure Love for humanity!!! In regards to how rape was punished, according to Deuteronomy chapter 22: Thousands of years ago, women did not work outside of the home. They solely took care of the house, & bore children for her husband. Women had to be virgins at the time she was ready for marriage, or no man would want her. Even if she wasn't raped, it STILL wasn't her choice for whom she would be given in marriage to: It was ALWAYS arranged between the father & the suitor (who usually paid a price for the intended bride). |
|
|
|
Post by captainbryce on Jan 23, 2019 6:09:13 GMT
quote author=" clusium" timestamp="1548223083" source="/post/2525474/thread"]He Chose to Send His Son, at the time in which He Did, because it was the Perfect TIME to do so - right when humanity was it's most sadistic, in terms of killing others. Okay first of all, that is FALSE. Scripture even contradicts that one in the very first book! Genesis says that the time of Noah was when everyone in the world was wicked. But he didn't send the Son then. No, instead he chose to wipe out everyone by flooding the whole goddamn planet (supposedly). So that was one of his early, yet numerous failures of morality! Christ Died the Most Shameful of Deaths, out of Pure Love for humanity!!! Even if he did (which there is no evidence that he did), SO WHAT? It was still God's fault that this happened making him the immoral one. Human sacrifice is immoral! In regards to how rape was punished, according to Deuteronomy chapter 22: Thousands of years ago, women did not work outside of the home. They solely took care of the house, & bore children for her husband. Women had to be virgins at the time she was ready for marriage, or no man would want her. Even if she wasn't raped, it STILL wasn't her choice for whom she would be given in marriage to: It was ALWAYS arranged between the father & the suitor (who usually paid a price for the intended bride). You're not helping your case at all. You're actually making mine for me about how the God of your bible is immoral. This is not a defense for the way of life of his chosen people, who he gave commandments to live this way. |
|
|
|
Post by Karl Aksel on Jan 23, 2019 8:44:17 GMT
What would you add to, take away from, or change about the Ten Commandments (the biblical list of Mosaic laws, not the Charlton Heston movie) to improve it and make it a moral guide? I suppose I'd just replace it with the Law of Cardamom:
You shall never bother others,
you shall be both fair and kind
And whatever else you do, I shall not mind. |
|
|
|
Post by phludowin on Jan 23, 2019 8:47:57 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. If you're not a vegetarian, you're not against killing either. Are you a hypocrite? When science hasn’t even determined whether or not a fetus is a person. Science does not define what a person is; it can just determine if a lifeform fits a definition of person. Defining what a person is is a matter for ethics and laws. You also dismissed the fact that a fetus is a human being, and all human beings should have the fundamental right to life. That is your opinion. It is in line with plenty of discriminatory opinions in the past, which valued personhood on having biological characteristics like the "right" gender, skin colour, or ethnicity. I prefer rational ethics that define a person as a being with (at one point of its existence to date) a sense of self and time, the ability to make conscious choices, and plans for the present and future. Science established that a fetus does not fulfill any of these criteria. Therefore a fetus is not a person. |
|
|
|
Post by phludowin on Jan 23, 2019 8:53:49 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. He labors under the delusion that a fetus is a person. I believe that no rational arguments will convince him otherwise. Accusations of hypocrisy from Cody™ have as much weight as accusations from an alcoholic who accuses you of trampling the white mice he believes are there. |
|
|
|
Post by Cody™ on Jan 23, 2019 10:21:16 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. He labors under the delusion that a fetus is a person. I believe that no rational arguments will convince him otherwise. Accusations of hypocrisy from Cody™ have as much weight as accusations from an alcoholic who accuses you of trampling the white mice he believes are there. Coming from the guy who equates pro-lifers to SS officers and child and animal abusers?  |
|
|
|
Post by phludowin on Jan 23, 2019 10:23:14 GMT
He labors under the delusion that a fetus is a person. I believe that no rational arguments will convince him otherwise. Accusations of hypocrisy from Cody™ have as much weight as accusations from an alcoholic who accuses you of trampling the white mice he believes are there. Coming from the guy who equates pro-lifers to SS officers and child and animal abusers? So, no rational arguments against it? Thanks for proving my point. |
|
|
|
Post by Isapop on Jan 23, 2019 12:21:12 GMT
You're not an invader if there's no other place you came from. You're not a trespasser if you're resting in the natural place where you came into existence. If we have a right to live, it has to be someplace. You can't say to someone, "As a person, you have the right to live, HOWEVER there exists no place where that right must be recognized." For a right to exist there must be a place where it is honored. And for the fetus, the only place it can be recognized is the womb.I remember reading some time ago about fetal brain development. At 26 weeks or so it seemed fairly impressive to me. So, that would be my two cents worth. Obviously that's negotiable. The point is to reach a wide consensus, so that the issue can be settled. |
|
|
|
Post by Cody™ on Jan 23, 2019 12:59:37 GMT
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)
In the violinist analogy that would be correct. But my analogy isn't like that, a fact Cody apparently failed to comprehend. I specifically stated that B freely consented to be attached to A. A is not an invader at all. My point is that in a situation like that, even if you agreed in the first place you still have the right to change your mind.
In fact if anything it's overly generous, since in my analogy B specifically intended to be attached - equivalent to a woman who specifically aimed to be pregnant. But many women who become pregnant never intended to be. Their consent was for sex, with the intention of having some fun without getting pregnant. And of course some women don't even consent to that - there are rape victims out there who are pregnant against their will. That's much closer to the violinist analogy, of course. I wonder if Cody thinks women should be forced to carry and give birth to their rapist's baby? I bet he does.Yes I do. Because whilst that baby may have ended up there against the mother’s will it’s still a human being so deserves the right to life like every other human. And also because the baby should not have to pay the penalty for it’s father’s crime. The mother should carry and and give birth to the baby but she most definitely shouldn’t have to raise the baby. That is the most reasonable and moral course of action. |
|
|
|
Post by Cody™ on Jan 23, 2019 13:27:54 GMT
Coming from the guy who equates pro-lifers to SS officers and child and animal abusers? So, no rational arguments against it? Thanks for proving my point. Sorry but after that gem, I can’t take anything you type seriously again. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 23, 2019 14:43:19 GMT
That is the most reasonable and moral course of action. LOL. No answer to this, Cody? |
|
