RE: Abortion not allowed
October 14, 2014 at 2:08 pm
(This post was last modified: October 14, 2014 at 2:33 pm by fr0d0.)
(October 13, 2014 at 5:37 am)Esquilax Wrote:(October 13, 2014 at 2:16 am)fr0d0 Wrote: lol esq please put your handbag away. You were trying to be condescending. Admit it. It's plain for everyone to see.
"It's just obvious!" is not a compelling argument. I've already explained my position, by what possible means could you have more information on my life by which to gainsay it?
It's a compelling argument where you're talking to someone who knows nothing about you and is no way in hell going to know you might have some anecdotal reason for being rude.
(October 13, 2014 at 3:19 pm)Mister Agenda Wrote:You seem to be doing it again. I doubt anyone thought I meant human 'being' as in more that a member of the human species. You're being pedantic.(October 11, 2014 at 6:32 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: No. There's a distinction to be made between human being and person. Personhood draws in all sorts of other considerations, which is a deliberate attempt to muddy the discussion. That is: sentience, self awareness. Conception is the beginning of the human life cycle. A human is created at that point.
Yes, a human is, but not a human being.
hu·man be·ing
noun
a man, woman, or child of the species Homo sapiens, distinguished from other animals by superior mental development, power of articulate speech, and upright stance.
per·son/ˈpərs(ə)n/
noun
1.a human being regarded as an individual.
I'm not the one trying to muddy the discussion.
(October 13, 2014 at 3:19 pm)Mister Agenda Wrote:Thanks for agreeing with me.(October 11, 2014 at 6:32 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: Mothers with unborn babies that were both killed isn't immoral?
How wouldn't it be immoral? What thought process could possibly guide you reasonably to the idea that I or Esquire wouldn't consider it immoral?
(October 13, 2014 at 3:19 pm)Mister Agenda Wrote:That's not what I meant. I won't call you a liar. I'm not Esq. If you find yourself on the same side of an argument as God does not mean that you followed what you think God represents without thinking for yourself.(October 11, 2014 at 6:32 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: I guess Esq is on Gods side in that judgement then.
Why should either of us consider something wrong merely because believers think God considers something right? Do you suppose our position is to always think the opposite of whatever God is supposed to think? I believe you're capable of deeper thinking than this.
(October 13, 2014 at 3:19 pm)Mister Agenda Wrote:Well that's for him to defend don't you think. If you don't know, then why are you defending him?(October 11, 2014 at 6:32 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: Why is the taking of life always wrong? This is what Esq says.
I doubt you're accurately representing Esquire.
(October 13, 2014 at 3:19 pm)Mister Agenda Wrote:It leaves my point where I put it. I think it can be just. Esq and other people are arguing that it can never be just to take life.(October 11, 2014 at 6:32 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: It's ALWAYS wrong. But only sentient life.
See how those two sentences are at odds with each other? Doesn't sound like Esquire. It certainly sounds like you, misrepresenting him though.
Again, you're defending something that you don't know. That's exactly Esq's argument as far as I can see. Let him put that straight if he disagrees.
Above you introduced 'personhood' or 'being'. What was the point of that if not to reduce the scope of the argument to sentient life?
(October 13, 2014 at 3:19 pm)Mister Agenda Wrote: [quote='fr0d0' pid='771971' dateline='1413066775']
Why is that wrong? Why can't it ever be just to take life?
It can be, so...where does that leave your point?
(October 13, 2014 at 3:19 pm)Mister Agenda Wrote:Then you agree with me.(October 11, 2014 at 6:32 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: Why is human sentience valued above other animal sentience?
We're wired to care about our fellow humans more than other animals, just like chimps and gorillas are wired to care more about their fellows dying than other animals. That doesn't mean we should. I like moral agency as a divider between what we treat as murder and what we treat as mere killing, but in light of obvious reasons to be biased, I have to wonder whether that is just a cover to justify unfair moral sentiments.
(October 13, 2014 at 3:19 pm)Mister Agenda Wrote:So I deduce. I believe in God and this is what I deduce his position to be, if, as I believe, he can know everything.(October 11, 2014 at 6:32 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: I would agree that humans can't judge any other human... because we simply lack the knowledge to make that decision. God, in having that knowledge, can. Even on a one millisecond old sentient baby.
Or so you imagine.