Against abortion and against person-hood?

glassjester

glassjester

Well-known member
PureX said:
We do currently decide which humans are to be afforded a right to life and which are not. And yet we have not denied the existence of human rights, completely, or even mostly.
Click to expand...

So human rights aren't for all humans?
Kind of defeats the purpose.




PureX said:
Though it's a typical comment from extremists, who can't cognate reality any other way but in terms of the most absurd extremes.
Click to expand...

Extremists think in extremes? A bit redundant...
 
glassjester

glassjester

Well-known member
quip said:
Thus far...


no...I'm too lazy. Scroll through the pages. If you exert the effort..I will in return.
Click to expand...

Are you referring to this?

Town Heretic said:
Succinctly put: if the existence of the right is admitted and a thing the law must protect where recognized and there is no objective litmus for determining the point of vestment, only a series of differing valuations on the point, then the only way to avoid abrogating what we have no right to abrogate is to protect every point along a chain of being wherein that right may arguably be found. The first link in that chain of being, the first new thing, is conception.
Click to expand...


We could play a guessing game about which of TH's posts you consider to be the best pro-life argument you've ever heard... or, you could just briefly summarize it.

You probably wouldn't even have to search through the thread.
If it stand out as the best argument you've heard, then I'm sure you can recall its main points.
 
quip

quip

BANNED
Banned
glassjester said:
Are you referring to this?




We could play a guessing game about which of TH's posts you consider to be the best pro-life argument you've ever heard... or, you could just briefly summarize it.

You probably wouldn't even have to search through the thread.
If it stand out as the best argument you've heard, then I'm sure you can recall its main points.
Click to expand...

Yes, that's the basic argument I'm referring to.

More specifically:
...then the only way to avoid abrogating what we have no right to abrogate is to protect every point along a chain of being wherein that right may arguably be found. The first link in that chain of being, the first new thing, is conception.
Click to expand...
 
PureX

PureX

Well-known member
glassjester said:
So human rights aren't for all humans?
Kind of defeats the purpose.
Click to expand...
No, it doesn't defeat anything.

See, in reality, such absolutist thinking is not workable. There are always going to be the anomalies and the exceptions that defy the general rule. Some human beings can't be allowed to continue living if we believe that most human beings deserve the right to live. Just as some human beings can't be allowed to live free, if we believe that most human beings should be allowed to do so.

Reality is relative, not absolute. This is difficult for absolutists to understand.

glassjester said:
Extremists think in extremes? A bit redundant...
Click to expand...
And yet even in all that redundancy, they don't seem to be able to recognize it! … Strange, isn't it?
 
glassjester

glassjester

Well-known member
PureX said:
See, in reality, such absolutist thinking is not workable. There are always going to be the anomalies and the exceptions that defy the general rule.
Click to expand...

We can't categorize pregnancy as an anomaly, though.
It's not an exception.
It doesn't defy a general rule.

It's how people are born.
 
PureX

PureX

Well-known member
glassjester said:
We can't categorize pregnancy as an anomaly, though.
It's not an exception.
It doesn't defy a general rule.

It's how people are born.
Click to expand...
As usual, you are again completely ignoring the real issue in favor of your absolutist opinion. I think we're done here. You just don't appear to be capable of comprehending anything other than your own point of view.
 
glassjester

glassjester

Well-known member
quip said:
You can read my objections.

You'd rather not defend it?
Click to expand...

Really, I did not see you object directly to TH's argument.


I asked you for the best pro-life argument you'd heard, and what you find wrong with it.
You told me, basically, to go find it myself, and in return you'd explain its flaws.

So?
 
quip

quip

BANNED
Banned
glassjester said:
Really, I did not see you object directly to TH's argument.


I asked you for the best pro-life argument you'd heard, and what you find wrong with it.
You told me, basically, to go find it myself, and in return you'd explain its flaws.

So?
Click to expand...

So, I'd say in short: TH presumes a valuation by default (begs the very question of the unborn's right-to-life) by way of a rationale premised upon the idea that we cannot (ostensibly) ascertain this very valuation.
 
glassjester

glassjester

Well-known member
quip said:
So, I'd say in short: TH presumes a valuation by default (begs the very question of the unborn's right-to-life) by way of a rationale premised upon the idea that we cannot (ostensibly) ascertain this very valuation.
Click to expand...

I don't think he started with the assumption of unborn humans' right to life. He began with the assumption that humans do have a right to life, at some point of human development.

This is a premise that I think you'd agree with, isn't it?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top