|
Post by EvenThen on Oct 7, 2004 12:09:20 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by vertigo on Oct 7, 2004 15:27:38 GMT -5
EvenThen, would you like to discuss it?
|
|
|
Post by EvenThen on Oct 7, 2004 21:55:11 GMT -5
I think the pictures speak for themselves...
I think America has somewhat of a double standard: we don't want to execute convicted murderers, and yet we kill the innocent. Some argue that Bush is killing innocent children in Iraq, while supporting a "medical procedure" that kills innocent children.
|
|
|
Post by vertigo on Oct 8, 2004 22:46:40 GMT -5
That isn't good enough. When a person says that, what they are really trying to do is add weight to their argument. Instead of entering a debate, they say this instead. "It's obvious, so I won't discuss it."
What are you afraid of? Are you afraid that if you debate it you might not be able to put forward a good argument? Or are you afraid that you might be convinced that in some limited fashion abortion is not the worst alternative?
If it is so blatantly obvious, you have no fear to debate it. If you don't debate it, how can others appreciate your view?
Think of it this way. The are a lot of people out there that don't agree with you. If you can convince them that your view is right, isn't that what you should be doing? Is posting those pictures and saying "they speak for themselves" the best argument you can put forward?
Realise that saying that is just a device to avoid a debate, because perhaps you won't win. If you can win the argument, argue it then. More people can be convinced that way.
And if you fear you opinion might be changed if you argue about it too much, that you might hear just the right argument that convinces you, realise that it can't be that bad then.
Don't come from the point where you think "I mustn't be convinced that abortion is okay sometimes, because it isn't". Come from the point where you say "if somebody manages to convince me that abortion is sometimes okay, it is then sometimes okay".
If your view is defendable, defend it. Don't hide behind that flimsy barrier of "I don't need to debate it, the pictures speak for themselves".
|
|
|
Post by EvenThen on Oct 12, 2004 11:44:29 GMT -5
You're right. My bad. I'm going to start a thread in the Atheists vs. Theists which will deal with this..
|
|
|
Post by breezanne on Oct 16, 2004 8:55:21 GMT -5
EvenThen... Would you like to look at photos of the innocent children, women, and men killed by pointlessly sloppy aggression in Iraq? We could decorate bloody pages full of them. They were actual, fully formed, sensate, conscious, living, breathing, creative human beings, who once moved about under their own volition in their homes and on their streets. Blown apart for the benefit of absolutely no one. Yet this is somehow called an "acceptable cost." I ask you, is Bush hypocritical? Do you wonder if he'll direct such tactics into crime infested areas of the U.S.? Is this a good precedent? Are Iraqi civilians "less valuable" than American civilians? You tell me.
I've seen you talk about black and white in these forums. You have no idea what such a world would look like, because you have never lived in such a world. And the world of ideas is just as shaded as the world of objects. Yes, some things are darker and some are lighter, but claiming that you cannot see gray is simply claiming that you have extremely limited vision.
|
|
|
Post by EvenThen on Oct 16, 2004 13:02:46 GMT -5
Casualities come with war. That is a hard, yet accepted, fact. Innocent people die in war, granted. I know that. Innocent people are dying all over the world, not just in Iraq. People are being murdered, gored, mutilated- and yet we pick apart our President, who is trying to make our world a safe place?
Besides, the terrorists are voting for Kerry, right? He'll make it easier for them.. the Communist party in our country has endorsed Kerry. I find that humorous.
|
|
|
Post by Superhappyjen on Oct 16, 2004 16:32:30 GMT -5
We're getting a little off the topic of abortion here...
You only have to listen to Bush talk for three seconds to be able to tell he's an idiot (for Kerry it takes at least 3 minutes)
|
|
|
Post by EvenThen on Oct 16, 2004 18:35:32 GMT -5
That's subjective.
|
|
|
Post by vertigo on Oct 16, 2004 19:07:49 GMT -5
People, people, drop the presidential bickering for a second.
Don't read too much into it. The leftists and the communists have a very similar socialist underpinning. It is a regular thing for communists to speak in support of democracy. Democracy is one step closer to communism, after all. It's a move away from what is good for the individual to what is good for the public.
|
|
Filter
Seasoned Citizen
An opposing thumb has made all the difference!!
Posts: 221
|
Post by Filter on Oct 17, 2004 21:16:37 GMT -5
Speaking of abortion, is there a good history of the legal or religious definitions concerning the beginning of life?
I recall that Adam's life began with breath. The debate seems centered on conception these days.
|
|
|
Post by vertigo on Oct 18, 2004 11:19:19 GMT -5
I don't think anybody can in good conscience argue that a new life form doesn't begin at conception. This has nothing to do with abortion, though.
It is a strawman, that where life begins has anything to do with abortion. It makes the defense easier, with that premise assumed. But it isn't true.
Killing a human life isn't categorically wrong. Accept it.
|
|
|
Post by EvenThen on Oct 18, 2004 19:51:16 GMT -5
That has everything to do with abortion.
|
|
|
Post by vertigo on Oct 19, 2004 16:00:49 GMT -5
Not at all. People kill in self defense. Euthanasia is defendable, as I have said previously. Ending a human life is not categorically wrong. There can be mitigating circumstances.
Therefore it is not right to belabour the point by arguing when life starts.
|
|
Filter
Seasoned Citizen
An opposing thumb has made all the difference!!
Posts: 221
|
Post by Filter on Oct 19, 2004 23:00:41 GMT -5
That has everything to do with abortion. I agree. If it is how a very large group of people are going to base their decision then it is part of the abortion argument. In your case, perhaps it is everything. My question was not about arguing when life begins, but rather a more thorough examination of the history of the position of the church and the state. This link touches on it: www.religioustolerance.org/abo_when.htmquote: Aristotle (384-322 BCE) wrote in one of his biological treatises 1 that the male embryo develops a human soul about 40 days after conception, whereas a female fetus acquires its soul at about 90 days. For much of its history, the Christian religion believed in this delayed-ensoulment principle and allowed abortions up to 90 days into pregnancy. Anyway, it was just a question I was interested in. If someone else thinks its a waste of time to explore then so be it.
|
|