2ephesians8
New member
Yeah, he's got some sweet dance moves doesn't he?....
Granite said:But a blastocyst or zygote or unattached egg is not a "baby," in my opinion. We're talking past each other.
Seriously, dude, answer the question: If it's a "mystery" then why wouldn't you err on the side of life? Why would you say "I have no idea when life begins so ABORT!"?Granite said:I've been pretty blunt: in saying when I think life begins, what constitutes personhood, yadda-yadda.
Granite said:What she's doing is centering on one argument I mentioned and ignoring everything else I said, which you're also doing. As I said, the elderly or disabled or mentally retarded would not be at risk because they are the weakest members of society. This too has gotten completely ignored.
.granite said:The ability to defend oneself and recognize your personal rights and liberties indicates higher thought, higher thinking, and self-awareness.
granite said:In other words, sentience, self-awareness, and potential to enjoy personal rights--and fight for them--could all be used as criteria for "personhood."
See, there you go again. You want to make it look as if I "lectured" you simply because you use snide remarks.By the way, Poly, you of all people shouldn't be giving lectures on the dispensing of snide remarks. I mean, come on. A lot of us here are guilty of that, yes?
:yawn:keypurr said:Thoughts to ponder: :blabla:
On Fire said:Seriously, dude, answer the question: If it's a "mystery" then why wouldn't you err on the side of life? Why would you say "I have no idea when life begins so ABORT!"?
Why not err on the side of life?
READ:skeptech said::yawn:
Passages out of your Bible are hardly a convincing argument.
Poly said:This makes no sense. They're "the weakest members of society" because of reasonings you've given which suggest one isn't yet human or isn't considered to have "personhood".
.
So how can you make the arguement that the elderly, disabled, toddlers, etc. are not at risk due to being the weakest members of society when what makes them weak are the very descriptions you've been giving that suggest one might not be human?
See, there you go again. You want to make it look as if I "lectured" you simply because you use snide remarks.
(Free rep points for the first person who can tell me what my actual "lecture" was to granite.)
Because life is about the cheapest commoditiy around. The hard truth is that the value of a person's life is pretty darn low to anyone else, except for those directly dependent, either emotionally or economically.On Fire said:If it's a "mystery" then why wouldn't you err on the side of life? Why would you say "I have no idea when life begins so ABORT!"?
But it's not a "mystery". Egg + Sperm = Life. It grows (as only something alive can do).
Why not err on the side of life?
Granite said:If the choice is, say, between taking a morning after pill or not, or using The Pill or not, I'd say let the couple make that call. I guess I can see where some of you guys would jump and assume I'm touting abortion, but I'm not and it's unfortunate you can't see that.
2ephesians8 said:This is touting abortion. Don't decieve yourself and pretend that you have no responsibility for the laws in our nation. Shrugging your shoulders and walking away doesn't release you from your civic responsibility to protect the 'weakest among us'.
Well, it seems pretty clear to me that this argument applies much better to those who are bound to 2000-year-old fairy tales and myths.... To each his own.2ephesians8 said:READ:
Skeptech perfers to be bound in lies. Don't bother him.
On Fire said:I'll talk slower....
W h y - d o - y o u - b e l i e v e - t h a t - n a t u r e - t a k i n g - i t s - c o u r s e - i s - a - l i c e n s e - t o - k i l l ? ? ?
skeptech said:Because life is about the cheapest commoditiy around. The hard truth is that the value of a person's life is pretty darn low to anyone else, except for those directly dependent, either emotionally or economically.
The question isn't "when does life begin," but "when does life become of value." The line for when it's OK to abort, murder, execute, euthanize, etc. is drawn according to this relative value.
skeptech said:Because life is about the cheapest commoditiy around. The hard truth is that the value of a person's life is pretty darn low to anyone else, except for those directly dependent, either emotionally or economically.
The question isn't "when does life begin," but "when does life become of value." The line for when it's OK to abort, murder, execute, euthanize, etc. is drawn according to this relative value.
Have you read "The Sea Wolf"? There's a dose of reality!
skeptech said:Well, it seems pretty clear to me that this argument applies much better to those who are bound to 2000-year-old fairy tales and myths.... To each his own.
Granite said:They're not because the elderly, for example, are simply in the twilight of their life. Toddlers are more than capable of reason (however crude or primitive), can sense danger, and can learn. The disabled encompass a very broad category but considering they are vulnerable but can still (in many cases) express awareness of themselves and surroundings, my argument would still stand.
I'd say this is less a discussion about what is "human" so much as it constitutes a discussion about what constitutes "personhood."
Poly said:An elderly Alzheimers patient I knew died recently. In the very last stage of her condition she was non-responsive, unable to talk or eat. She basically laid in bed, motionless and just breathed. Would you consider her human? (I know, you hate that word)....ok, so was she considered not to have "personhood"?