Rather, it's a neat argumentative circle draw freehand. Actualized? You're simply trying to give your point of valuation a respectability it can't command else. There's nothing inherently irrational about treating a new biologically created being, be it a few days or several months, as a creature of right. In fact, rationality compels it, as per my argument.
What distinguishes obsession from strong opposition to the taking of life without moral or ethical justification?
I don't, but I can understand the distinction. The unborn haven't violated the compact in one of the extraordinary ways that allows for the abrogation of their right to being. Those sentenced to death have taken the one thing that can't be returned to the victim in any meaningful sense.
Right. And theft is theft, but not taxes, by way of distinction.
Some do, in the moral sense, and some don't. But everyone understands the unborn have done nothing to warrant the divestment of right, if that right is established or, in the case of my argument, it is as likely as not that the right exists to be protected.
I don't believe most of those who protest abortion are obsessed with it any more than I'd describe ardent abolitionists in times past as being obsessed with slavery...though whether they are or aren't has literally nothing to do with whether they're right on the point.
Because firearms are owned by all sorts of people. Most of them aren't used to murder anyone. Some of them are used to thwart murder and other criminal enterprise.
A few of my neighbors and my father in law have military grade weapons. Have for years. As far as I know they haven't murdered anyone and don't plan to.
He does, but given the wages of sin is death, grace is required for each and every.
Whatever your motivation, if you defend the right you work a good. So maybe you give food and shelter to the poor to lay up treasures in heaven, and maybe you do it out of fear of failing what you believe is a moral obligation, or maybe you simply do so out of a sense of profound love and gratitude. In any event the poor find shelter and food.
I am but I don't agree that I'd have to be.
It's complicated for many when we talk about right, but existence is fairly simple. It's what we do about existence that divides us. I'd say it's the willful, intentional clouding of the principle issue by those who desire to exercise the power of life and death over the unborn that invites confusion. The issue isn't really complicated.
Only if you conflate killing with murder, but all killing isn't murder. Murder is a crime. Crimes are defined by statutes. That's one reason why I don't call abortion murder. I simply attack the wrongness of it, the contrary nature of it in relation to the right to exist, etc.
It's about the punishment. A lot of "pro-lifers" aren't particularly pro-life. They are particularly pro-punishment. Forcing women who have engaged in sex outside wedlock, or engaged in sex for fun (rather than procreation) is viewed by these people, I believe, as a form of punishment. And that's why many of the not especially pro-life "pro-lifers" don't want abortion to be made legal. They don't want those wanton women to be able to escape their just punishment.
Again, it's all about their love of punishment. Not their respect for life. Guns are a means of dishing out immediate and severe punishment. And these folks really like that idea. So they can't get enough of them. And they recommend them as a solution to all our crime problems. … Just buy a gun and shoot the criminals.
That's just it. They aren't "pro-life", they are actually pro-punishment. Their main interest is in seeing anyone they consider to be overt and unrepentant "sinners", punished, and punished severely. They aren't particularly interested in the sanctity of a human life. They think we're all deserving of eternal damnation, anyway.
Yeah, it's a standard reaction from the 'absolutist' mind-set. It can't acknowledge any example of relativism. There can be no reasonable objection, and no reasonable alternative view. Because the right opinion has to be absolutely and unequivocally right.
While I do find rational argument and conclusion inspiring I'm a bit sorry to see too many find it little more than a thing to attempt to paint as something else and avoid.
That's a bit of a meaningless sentence, when you consider it. We understand the biological fact of existence. Right doesn't manifest itself empirically. At least there's no means that I've found or heard argued and demonstrated, nothing that yet meets my argument and answers it. So I'm not compelled to know "everything" any more than you appear compelled to meet the actual argument. I'm only compelled to have reasoned it as best I can, to present the argument and leave it open to examination and counter.
Assumptive nonsense or you could illustrate the knowledge that invalidates or alters the argument instead of spending most of your time trying your level best to give an impression of my case at odds with my actual approach. It isn't "my all or nothing case". It's simple, clear reason. At some point right exists and where it exists it is protected from our abrogation.
A really convoluted way of quip noting that he can't defeat the argument rationally and instead desires to leave the matter to a clash of subjective valuations and, eventually, a call to compromise on a point that reasonably shouldn't be.
No, it's an argument from reason. What's absolutist about it aside from your rhetoric? I suppose you could say that I believe you have an absolute right to your life absent actions by you that abrogate it.
No, you mean value and apply it to a point where it doesn't belong. I recognize that all sorts of things are relative and many a thing certain. Your problem is that all you see is relativism. It's what leads you into hypocritical declarations and positions, as it did with Roe.
Rather, I set the argument entirely to invite discourse and objection, to test it. Years later I'm mostly getting kill the messenger attempts like yours. That tells me I had at least one thing right as an atheist that remains true in my faithfulness.
Rather, a conclusion is either demonstrably correct or demonstrably in error. If you can't illustrate the latter it's your problem.
No, I'm not. I'm recognizing that we cannot abrogate at any point along that chain of being precisely because of the risk, not the certitude.
That's a declaration, not a presentation of proof or argument. Beans, by way of equal answer.
I keep hoping, but your sarcastic "sublime" and general approach, which as with Pure has mostly been an ongoing attempt to mischaracterize a point and the messenger. Doesn't leave me much to work with and it increasingly undermines my interest in treating either of you as other than hostile witnesses, so to speak.
Of course it was...though you're free to answer it's presentation in the alternate thread.
That doesn't follow. The concern is a recognition that the right may as easily exist as not and that if it exists we are not entitled to abrogate it. It is unconscionable to assume the risk of injury if the aim of law is justice and the right which may exist is inviolate given the nature of the problem, there being no possible redress for the violation.
If so I'll only end up standing on your head.
LOL