Yes. What what would be advanced by killing newborns?
You didn't answer why we should give rights to the conjoining of sperm and egg.
Against abortion and against person-hood?
- Thread starter Delmar
- Start date
Yes. What what would be advanced by killing newborns?
You didn't answer why we should give rights to the conjoining of sperm and egg.
I didn't say you should. My son doesn't have all of the rights I do. But he has the right to exist and to be protected in his life. Why should the unborn? I set that out in my argument.
That's another in a regrettable series of mischaracterizations by you in route to your lamentable ending to this... I've never said or suggested a lack of devotion on the point. To the contrary, I've said I have a particular moral and religious position, but that the argument advanced isn't rooted in either, which given the nature of the compact and diversity of individual narratives within it seems appropriate. I've also said that I'd find anyone who didn't have an emotional investment in the issue suspect.
Yes, they're routinely thrown at arguments in lieu of rational objection.... then again, you do know what they say about polished turds....don't you?lain:
Potential of person; although I am sure to be argued over stating this.
No one aborts at this time, this it is academic, as we all know abortion occurs when the growth on the fetus is detected.
Well, indeed you set such out and I agree that both your son and a new conjoining of sperm and egg are life ...though, you haven't argued to the point of exactly how you've logically conflated/defaulted conceptual "life" viz the latter by way of the former. Why shouldn't the inequities of qualities/extant properties inherent to each not be reflected in the manner of right bestowed? After all, I don't begin my summer picnic, chicken leg BBQ by cracking eggs. That would end in a mess....among rational concerns.
I know you do, you've never fooled me on the point. Only confusion whether the devotion was serving ego or unborn.
You'll have to separate the assumptive from the inquiry. For someone who values the succinct and clear that's a peculiar choice of expression. Where you move into language you'd criticize in Lon is where you tangle things. There's no conflation. Rather, the argument answers on precisely why we should treat the unborn to the same respect in right as my son, what we cannot risk and why, noting the objective impossibility of answering on the point of vestment.
What inequities between the two exist within the realm of right? None, I argue. And what difference could exist in the manner of right bestowed absent an answer that would negate the need?
Connect the dots. In what meaningful way is that a parallel?
I'm not attempting to fool anyone. Noting the argument isn't rooted in emotion and exists as an operation of logic isn't an attempt to do more than to offer an answer to the problem considered by all sorts of people with all sorts of ideas and values, using the one unifying language of man, reason.
A turd here, an ego there, in the final analysis what you think of or how you speak to me is of no moment. How you speak or fail to speak to the argument is the very thing, altogether.
Well, an objective impossibility actualizes itself amidst a subjective and personal scenario. You speak in idealized, prescriptive tones not practical ones.
The very physiological fact that your son may exist sans the aid of a womb whereas incipient life fails to sustain without such should ring logical bells for you. Likewise, such should toll regarding your insistence in dismissing such inequities.
Law of identity.... Leibniz I believe.
genuineoriginal
New member
The same things that would be advanced by killing unborn babies.
_____
After-birth abortion: why should the baby live?
the authors argue that what we call ‘after-birth abortion’ (killing a newborn) should be permissible in all the cases where abortion is, including cases where the newborn is not disabled.
_____
After-birth abortion: why should the baby live?
the authors argue that what we call ‘after-birth abortion’ (killing a newborn) should be permissible in all the cases where abortion is, including cases where the newborn is not disabled.
_____
Who took away the rights you don't want rightfully returned to unborn babies?
How so...we're discussing abortion here. Newborns...well, do I really have to point out that they fail to qualify under the heading?
They've never had rights per se. Prior to Roe v Wade woman simply lacked the power to formally object...so goes the default assumption for unborn rights. You agree?
Not asking you to grant a thing. You should recognize that it was granted by the creator!
Get out of my thread!
Seems you're an absentee landlord...or threadlord as the case may be.
Feel free to chime on in though.
Oh, in answer to above: God seems either unwilling or unable to interject His influence upon the matter.
That's just your valuation, your subjectivity coloring it. It isn't true. My argument leads to an entirely practical end.
I understand the biological difference. But your making that relevant to the point is simply you layering your subjective valuation over it again. And so the argument. I've answered Pure on the peculiar notion that the comatose loose right or the sleeping should possess less of it.
Good Gottfried man, you'll have to do more than that.
That said, it's Delmar's thread (though some may take loud exception to anyone but Knight claiming an ownership element) so if you want to continue to not argue my argument we should do it elsewhere.
It's not my colored subjectivity that determines an abortion situation. By simply declaring rights for the unborn, hearts, minds and passions don't summarily change. Such pronouncements may give you warm fuzzies but the realities preceding the desire to abort (legal or no) remain.
Again, no valuation is being applied. The physical difference between the two are vast and self-evident while their relevance to the physical circumstance regarding abortion cannot be denied..these are simply observable facts.
Whatever for? The logic is unassailable. A cannot equal B no matter all efforts to spin a yarn otherwise.
That's fine. Last word said. Feel free to relocate the discussion.
I agree simply declaring anything is problematic, which is why I didn't.
The minute you make the physical difference relevant to the argument you necessarily leave the objective and move into valuation. It just doesn't logically determine anything in terms of the argument.
Nothing in that connects to a refutation of my argument. Those are the dots and that's the nature of my answer.
:idunno: If you want to take a stab at those dots just let me know where and I'll oblige. :cheers:
glassjester
Well-known member
Do you believe that anyone has a right to life?
Lon
Well-known member
Not bad. Critics may be able to cook, but that isn't necessary, just that their taste buds are consistently in check. I put myself in your category because for you and I, it is strickly meat and potatoes so following Better Homes and Garden isn't extraordinary. We might get lucky at times. Notice all the inclusion.
glassjester
Well-known member
Guess not...
I realized recently that pro-lifers do not seek punishment for women, which by extension means that they do not see abortion as murder.
Trump said that punishment for be sought for the doctor who performs it, as in the institution, which is something I idealized in a sense before he stated it- the institution should be illegal.
Trump said that punishment for be sought for the doctor who performs it, as in the institution, which is something I idealized in a sense before he stated it- the institution should be illegal.