What have you provided? All you and a few others have done is prove that you get your morals from secular law while denying biological facts.
.
.
Atheists, the death penalty and abortion...
|
What have you provided? All you and a few others have done is prove that you get your morals from secular law while denying biological facts.
.
Biological facts? Nobody here has denied you, except where you are incorrect. The point of our disagreement is that you're imposing some additional significance onto a bunch of cells where none exist, and then demanding that everyone else follow on from this.
Throw as much emotive language about as you like, it doesn't change the actual facts: or are you denying that the fetus can't survive without the assistance of the mother? Because that's the real determination of personhood.
"YOU take the hard look in the mirror. You are everything that is wrong with this world. The only thing important to you, is you." - ronedee
Want to see more of my writing? Check out my (safe for work!) site, Unprotected Sects! RE: Atheists, the death penalty and abortion...
March 14, 2013 at 6:12 am
(This post was last modified: March 14, 2013 at 6:14 am by genkaus.)
(March 14, 2013 at 2:09 am)catfish Wrote: You guys are both funny, really you are. You will sit here and deny basic biology to support sanctioned murder... Weird, just weird... Nobody is denying biology - but then biology has little to do with it. (March 14, 2013 at 4:20 am)catfish Wrote: Definition of PERSON The statement wasn't that you don't know these definitions, it was that you don't understand them. (March 14, 2013 at 4:20 am)catfish Wrote: Care to redefine a person? Maybe a person doesn't (or didn't) exist as a fetus... No, a person did exist as a fetus - but when it existed as a fetus, it wasn't a person then. ![]() You guys!!! How did you know what amuses me? . (March 14, 2013 at 6:21 am)catfish Wrote:(March 14, 2013 at 6:12 am)genkaus Wrote: No, a person did exist as a fetus - but when it existed as a fetus, it wasn't a person then. Not unless the sexism is with regards to the future person it may become. (March 14, 2013 at 6:33 am)catfish Wrote:(March 14, 2013 at 6:28 am)genkaus Wrote: Not unless the sexism is with regards to the future person it may become. 1. You are free to object as much as you wish - just not legislate on the matter. 2. Be sure to be consistent in your application. "Life" applies where "sexism" doesn't, such as in case of sperm and eggs.
1. Bullshit. We already legislate the matter.
2. "Life" applies at a higher morality than "sexism". If you can recognise sexism against a "future person", you should recognise murder too. |
« Next Oldest | Next Newest »
|