Show me what's wrong with my use of the term "human being".
Precisely. Don't equivocate with the subjective term "person".
Tom
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Abortion
- Thread starter Adamski
- Start date
Precisely. Don't equivocate with the subjective term "person".
Tom
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
I already did. It does not match the common usage of that term. Another dictionary definition that has the same meaning that I used:
Human being definition and meaning | Collins English Dictionary
You may be able to find one that goes along with your definition. There is no set in stone definition of "human being" or "person". You are trying to use a version of an equivocation fallacy. Please note, I am merely saying that when we become "human" is under question. I am not trying to use the definitions that I use to prove absolutely that being a human is not until after birth. I will not regulate what others can or cannot do with their own bodies based upon an unanswered question. Personally I do not like abortion. But I am not going to enforce my feelings on others.
oldbadger
Skanky Old Mongrel!
What a strange point of view, that care for children and the disabled is communism........ odd.... really.
Anybody who insists that pregnant women must go through with their pregnancy to birth, and then wanders away careless about the infant's welfare, medicare and education seems to be a bit shallow to me.
And any who insist that a disabled foetus continues to birth should be prepared to pay taxes to support the disabled person on medicare for whole life. It can cost many thousands a week to care for some disabled, you know.
It's just a question of whether pro-lifers are pro-life after pregnancy, because if they are not, then that seems like a total hypocrisy to me, is all.
And the 'you're a commie' thrust lost it's impact way back in the 50's Time to think up something new.
Sha'irullah
رسول الآلهة
Robbing from Peter to pay Paul is communism. That is what you strongly support judging from your previous statement unless you think I am not entitled to my earnings.
They got pregnant by choice. More than enough contraceptives exist that to get pregnant by accident is more than ludicrous. And if you cannot pay for contraceptives don't have sex. It is not my job to support what your tiddly bits can do. You do not need to have sex to live.
Again, unless it is rape or some other mishap it makes no difference. You are now solidying my argument by stating that at least 50% of all women are absolutely stupid and worthless in every regard.
Don't get knocked up and you can't pay up!
It's just a question of whether pro-lifers are pro-life after pregnancy, because if they are not, then that seems like a total hypocrisy to me, is all.
No it is still relevant to authoritarians like yourself. You wish that people have no responsibility for their own lives and to belittle women in such a sexist and inappropriate manner. Women are not stupid.
oldbadger
Skanky Old Mongrel!
What a rant!
I do like a good chuckle to wake me up.
OK, so it seems to me that you're Pro-Choice....... that's cool. Pro-Lifers would support children's and disabled welfare as strongly as they support the unborn foetus, so I don't think that you fit the Pro-life definition..
And so Women should have the right to choose, as long as choices are made very early where possible.
Obviously where serious disability is discovered then nobody would insist that the pregnant woman continue a pregnancy.
NO Probs..... we've got that cleared up.
Sha'irullah
رسول الآلهة
What a rant!
I do like a good chuckle to wake me up.
OK, so it seems to me that you're Pro-Choice....... that's cool. Pro-Lifers would support children's and disabled welfare as strongly as they support the unborn foetus, so I don't think that you fit the Pro-life definition..
But you just admitted to me being pro-life. Pro-lifers believe in exceptions to abortion while anti-abortionists do not. This is the entire debacle since most pro-choice advocates here seem to want to disregard the options considering the morality.
You just described me as a pro-life advocate then. I am against 99% of most abortions at the end of the day.
oldbadger
Skanky Old Mongrel!
I just admitted that any Pro-Lifer who insists that the pregnant woman continue to birth, and then, once born, cares not a fig for the infant's welfare is a friggin' hypocrite.
I would support pro-choice in the first couple of months or later if serious disability or risks to mother might be discovered.
But in any case, where I live all children do receive free medicare and education anyway....... it's one of our British values.
PLs or ABs are welcome to their opinions but any of them who would want to control or impose upon any woman's decisions about her pregnancy and her future should be kept far far away from having any powers over her whatsoever.
I do find that most of these PL sweethearts don't actually give a damn about the born infant's future, which exposes the total and utter hypocrisy of many PL positions. And where a pregnant womanm is forced to give birth to a disabled child then the PL brigade should pay special taxes to support the disablred's needs FOR LIFE.
It's a kind of PAY UP OR SHUT UP message, really.
Yep, that looks like a PL position to me.
Look, it's ok you having that opinion, just as long as you never ever get to actually interfer with any woman's decisions one way or the other.
But you aren't. You are pro-death.
You are fine with pro-death social policies and laws, as long as you have more money to spend the way you want to spend it.
You aren't prolife, you aren't even prochoice.
Tom
Sha'irullah
رسول الآلهة
Which is irrelevant to the pro-life stance. I believe somebody should die because they have taken a life and such an action cannot be reversed and is a testament to the psychological damage of that individual he or she cannot be allowed back in society or any society for that matter. I won't have a killer die and suffer oppose to being ended rightly.
On top of this is as I state before that pro-life is only a political phrase that is used for people who oppose abortion on moral grounds.
No I want less money to for the government to spend. That is the point.
The point is if your not sure if the fetus is a person and you have an abortion anyway you saying
you dont care if your murdering a person youve got other priorities.
Based on your logic a Jew in Germany would have to prove they werent less than human or it was okay to kill t
Last edited:
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
You are not paying attention. I am not sure. That does not mean that others are not sure. I am not the one that would have an abortion. I am not going to impose my beliefs upon others. And since you are not following my argument you should not jump to such illogical conclusions.
Thats the point if there not sure and do it anyway it shows they dont care if they are killing a person, they have other priorities same as the hunter shooting before he makes sure its a deer and not a human
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
You are not paying attention. I don't know. You don't know. You can't ban an activity based upon a lack of knowledge. The only ones that can be said to know are those that are pregnant in regards to their own pregnancy. Until you prove that it is a "human" life the burden of proof is upon those opposing abortion.
I wasn't at Auschwitz. That doesn't mean I can't ban an activity based on lack of that knowledge.
Tom
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
Do you truly not see how you failed here?
You may not. Religious beliefs can cause massive cognitive dissonance.
The Emperor of Mankind
Currently the galaxy's spookiest paraplegic
How can you abort a pregnancy before it starts? Aborting a process implies that process has already started.
If you're unwilling to use scientific or legal terms then that confusing morass of subjective definitions is all you're left with.
The Catholic Church isn't exactly the best institution to be listening to on moral or sexual issues. It's a proven fact that an abstinence-only approach to sex does not work. All it seems to do is
- teach us to feel shame for things that are completely natural & inherent to our species' survival;
- bottle up our sexual desires until they twist, warp and/or misfire when we act on them. Cases of child molestation might be an example of such instances.
If you don't want an abortion then don't get one. Also, if you don't think abortion is justified in the case of rape then how exactly are you 'pro-life'? You're drastically reducing the quality of life for the mother by insisting she carry on with her rape-caused pregnancy.
If a foetus shouldn't be aborted because it's mother was raped then why should the mother be forced to deal with the pregnancy because she was raped? Why does the foetus get a free pass here?
Unveiled Artist
Veteran Member
My post was a year old. Time flies.
I said once conception starts, I disagree with abortion.
It is subjective. Abortion argumente are usually based on peoples morals of right snd wrong. For example, some consider late abortions alright but not early ones. Its like you have to wait for you to "see" life before using morality such as when to apply the law ln whether and when an child should live.
If someone killed someone else as an adult, they still killed and the other is dead. It doesnt matter why, who, when, and where. Doesnt matter if its a child, adult, senior. The point of when someone is growing at conception to their last breathe is all life.
Morally, what do you based life on?
If science says that killing is alright in self defense does it still make right regardless of how the method of death is defined?
I agree with a lot of things with the church based on its reasoning not my own.
Let me ask. Is murder okay if it were a child, adult, senior, rapist, priest, a judge, trump, and so forth?
Which taking a life is more justified morally? (Not legally. That depends on country)
Both are life. Goes back to my question above. Rape doesn't justify the death of a person. Even if death can be justified, there is no "eye for an eye" scenario. Foetus gets free pass.
I said once conception starts, I disagree with abortion.
It is subjective. Abortion argumente are usually based on peoples morals of right snd wrong. For example, some consider late abortions alright but not early ones. Its like you have to wait for you to "see" life before using morality such as when to apply the law ln whether and when an child should live.
If someone killed someone else as an adult, they still killed and the other is dead. It doesnt matter why, who, when, and where. Doesnt matter if its a child, adult, senior. The point of when someone is growing at conception to their last breathe is all life.
Morally, what do you based life on?
If science says that killing is alright in self defense does it still make right regardless of how the method of death is defined?
I agree with a lot of things with the church based on its reasoning not my own.
Let me ask. Is murder okay if it were a child, adult, senior, rapist, priest, a judge, trump, and so forth?
Which taking a life is more justified morally? (Not legally. That depends on country)
Both are life. Goes back to my question above. Rape doesn't justify the death of a person. Even if death can be justified, there is no "eye for an eye" scenario. Foetus gets free pass.
No, it really isnt.
Out of curiosity, though: what do you think "abortion supporters' main argument" is?
You really don't see how you failed epically here?
Let me rephrase your question a bit.
"Until you prove that it is a 'human' life the burden of proof is upon those who oppose slavery."
Now do you get it?
Tom