Abortionist The New Age Nazi's

[pcabibi]

[quote name='Aloysius' post='1136142' date='Dec 6 2006, 12:47 AM']
it's a great thing when dialogue actually goes somewhere and people can learn by discussion even when they still don't agree on many issues

anyway: that's just the thing-- law shouldn't be made on some concept of when the "soul" is "infused" into the body: that would be a religious concept.

law should be made to protect any unique living human person from any other human person.

legal philosophy 101: no human being has the legal right to end another human being's life (except in self defence). you have admitted life and humanity are qualities of the fetus; therefore the law ought to protect it.

the only legal justification would be to attempt to call it un-human (seeing as it has a unique human genetic code, this does not hold up) or not alive (when it is clearly alive)
[/quote]

The problem is is that the woman feels as if she IS defending herself. for whatever the reason, we have to let her make that decision. It's her nutrients that the embryo is feeding off of. Does she not have the right to choose if she wants to lone her body to another "human being?"

If you had the same bone marrow type as a lukemia patient... are you REQUIRED to give it to him? I'd be nice if you did... but should you be REQUIRED to do so? This is why The woman should have the right to choose... because if she does not have that right... then it opens up the door for all of us to be subjected to that same type of medical scrutiny.

how would you like it if the government had all of your medical records... and served you a supena to show up to the nearest hospital to donate your blood or your bone marrow? Or even worse... just like expecting a women to have a baby when the pregnency will kill her... What if donating the bone marrow will kill you? what if you've already loned so much of your bone marrow that you can't spare any more? But it doesn't matter... it's either donate and die, or refuse and end up in jail.... Because if you didn't donate, then you're letting that person die and it's murder punishible by the same legal penalties that the criminal element of this society recieves for intentionally shooting or stabbing somebody.

That legal philosophy is just that... a philosophy. It's not realistic when it comes to abortion and a woman's right to choose.

Edited December 6, 2006 by JClives

[pcabibi]

[quote name='Socrates' post='1136164' date='Dec 6 2006, 01:08 AM']
Well, you've claimed that the reason it is wrong to kill people is because of their soul.

Can you offer concrete [i]physical[/i] evidence that you or any other person has a soul? And a year-old child is also dependent on others to live? Is it also a "parasite"? [/quote]

No because a parasite is defined as an organisim that lives INSIDE of a hosts body. A 1 year old child lives outside silly


[quote name='Socrates' post='1136164' date='Dec 6 2006, 01:08 AM']
Well, if you're Christian, the Apostles were not afraid to go out and evangelize all nations. They certainly didn't keep their Faith hidden under a bushel basket, nor in a closet! And we are called to be in the world, not of the world. Learn the Bible before you try to refer to it. [/quote]

Show me where I said I hide my faith? I was speaking on crusading.. forcing people to believe as you do.... There is a clearly distinquishable differance between evangelizing and making laws based on your beliefs, thus subjecting all non believers to your believes without thier explicit permission. I mean what the heck... God, the guy that made the first 10 laws, the same guy that created us, even HE gave us free will. What makes you think you have the right to strip that away from people?

[quote name='Socrates' post='1136164' date='Dec 6 2006, 01:08 AM']
If we don't know when anybody "gets their soul," does that mean we should be allowed to just kill anybody, since (according to you) we can never know for certain whether anyone "has a soul"?[/quote]

No of course not. But 1 woman does not have the ability to kill another womans embryo. It's her choice.

[quote name='Socrates' post='1136164' date='Dec 6 2006, 01:08 AM']
They have non-rational animal or vegetative souls which do not survive death. (Sorry I don't have time to go into all the philosophy now). We believe the human soul is rational and immortal, and that human life is more valuable and worthy of protection than lower forms of life.[/quote]

So Humans are to plants what Nazi's are to Jews?

Just joking I'm tired and I'm workin overtime.

[quote name='Socrates' post='1136164' date='Dec 6 2006, 01:08 AM']
You're setting up your own subjective feelings as the basis of a right to life here. Maybe some hateful bigots can't emphasize with blacks or Jews or some other people. Maybe some people can't empaphize with you. Maybe I can't empaphize with anybody.
While maybe some sensitive souls can empahize with kittens and puppy dogs and trees and insects. You've proven nothing objective here.[/quote]

The point is, is that every human is CAPABLE of empathising with every other human being on the planet... I didn't say that everyone did or allowed themselves too. And you can't empathize with an animal. You can learn thier behavioral patterns and use them to communicate with them. That's not empathy.

[quote name='Socrates' post='1136164' date='Dec 6 2006, 01:08 AM']
So as long as we declare the killers are not motivated by "outright hate" it's alright to kill other human beings? (And how can we read minds and determine everyone's inner motivation anyway?) You're missing my point - they both declared human-beings "non-persons" to justify killing them.
[/quote]

I didn't say that... i was retorting to your comparison between pro choicers and Nazi's. You said that Nazi's looked at jews as not being people, comparing that to how pro choicers look at babies. Nevermind the fact that pro choicers support choice and how they feel about the embryo is irrelevant.... I was simply pointing out that the Nazi's HATED the jews... never once did they deny them humanship. They Killed them with the soul purpose of having them erradicated from the planet as an entire RACE [b]OF PEOPLE[/b] . A woman having an abortion is in no way comparable to a falsly justified mass genocided glued together by a hateful philosphy.

Edited December 6, 2006 by JClives

[Aloysius]

if a unique human person lives dependent upon your body because of his connectedness to you, you do not have the right to kill it. siamese twins do not have the right to kill their other-half.

I don't intend to go into a debate about abortion to save the life of the mother here. Let's just stick to the basic ideal pregnancy situation and if abortion is justified there for the sake of the argument.

there is a fundamental difference between the situations. in one: a human being exists in his natural state where all human beings must begin. as a live human who is not infringing upon any individual in any unacceptable manner (it is acceptable for a baby to expect to be able to grow within a mother's womb; it is not acceptable for a random lukemia patient to expect your bone marrow) but rather

basically, you offer the choice to forbid one person their natural state of developement by killing them because of its burden to the person on whom they are dependent for that developement.

fundamental human rights that ought to be protected by the government:
1) the right to live.
2) the right to natural expectation of aid in growth from youth to adulthood from the parents (parents are held responsible to keep their children alive and in a situation in which they can grow through natural means)

these are things which our laws enforce... except in the womb though there is no justification for removing the protection of law from a person whilst in the womb.

legally a woman has a responsibility to allow that human person to grow inside of her; just as legally all parents have the responsibility to see to the safety and welfare of the children they procreate (even if it means giving them up for adoption; killing them is never a legal option)

[pcabibi]

[quote name='Aloysius' post='1136282' date='Dec 6 2006, 02:10 AM']
if a unique human person lives dependent upon your body because of his connectedness to you, you do not have the right to kill it. siamese twins do not have the right to kill their other-half.

I don't intend to go into a debate about abortion to save the life of the mother here. Let's just stick to the basic ideal pregnancy situation and if abortion is justified there for the sake of the argument.

there is a fundamental difference between the situations. in one: a human being exists in his natural state where all human beings must begin. as a live human who is not infringing upon any individual in any unacceptable manner (it is acceptable for a baby to expect to be able to grow within a mother's womb; it is not acceptable for a random lukemia patient to expect your bone marrow) but rather

basically, you offer the choice to forbid one person their natural state of developement by killing them because of its burden to the person on whom they are dependent for that developement.

fundamental human rights that ought to be protected by the government:
1) the right to live.
2) the right to natural expectation of aid in growth from youth to adulthood from the parents (parents are held responsible to keep their children alive and in a situation in which they can grow through natural means)

these are things which our laws enforce... except in the womb though there is no justification for removing the protection of law from a person whilst in the womb.

legally a woman has a responsibility to allow that human person to grow inside of her; just as legally all parents have the responsibility to see to the safety and welfare of the children they procreate (even if it means giving them up for adoption; killing them is never a legal option)
[/quote]

It doesn't matter though... Because Even if that lukemia patient was a child... and your bone marrow transplant GUARENTEED the childs normal human development, thus making him dependant on you... you still should not have to be obligated to do so under US law.

However your logic regarding normal development is inane. In both cases... A person still has to CHOOSE whether or not to give another person life based on sacrificing thier own body. It's unfair to place that expectation on women simply because they literally have a uterous. It's sexist.

[Aloysius]

that's nature, dude. nature. not sexism, NATURE. I cannot believe how radically un-human and un-natural; even anti-human and anti-natural, your logic is.

if that lukemia patiant by some natural process became a part of me as a normal stage in his development that all human beings must go through, I would not be permitted to kill him or let him die. of course, there is no such situation; me and the lukemia patiant are non-connected individuals. the mother and child are individuals connected by nature.

step back and listen to yourself and your logic for a second. you're 1 arguing against human nature as "sexist" and 2 justifying the legality of ending of one life for the convenience of another

all parents are obligated under US law to see to it that their children are given the chance to grow and develop. no parent is permitted the right to choose to kill their child or allow their child to die in any way to get rid of them.

this is a human person, a unique human person, going through the initial natural stage of development of growing inside his mother. the law ought to protect that human person against the choice of any other human person. if that means a 9 month 'inconvenience' so be it. can a siamese twin choose to kill off one of his twins in order to have a more convenient life and personal privacy and freedom? not legally, no. not morally either of course. the two can be seperated but not at the expense of one life over the other.

[pcabibi]

Well forgive me but I just don't see how giving a woman the right to decide what happens inside her body as unhuman, unnatural, and illogical. I feel as if you are justifying sexisim with philosophy while cloaking it with principle. To me that is dangerous territory to tread in, especially when one demonizes an entire idealogy by likening it to Nazi's, when we all follow the same God.


My logic is perfectly sound. Even with your siamise twin arguement, the mother can choose to end one of thier lives to give the other one a better chance. That's happened alot actually.

Look, you can try and bait me into a philisophical discussion all day long about my views on murder and what is or is not a human... it's immaterial. Giving people who are able to make a choice, the ability to do so.. is not only crucial to me, but it's also morally sound. I apologize if you do not see it through the same window I'm looking through