Christians Move To EXECUTE Women For Abortions
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
04-02-2017, 10:24 PM (This post was last modified: 04-02-2017 10:28 PM by RocketSurgeon76.)
RE: Christians Move To EXECUTE Women For Abortions
I agree, Shai. That was my first thought-- why does the murderer count as someone not to be healed or protected?

We may be executing him, using methods that have (hopefully) been proven to be cruelty-free, but our Constitution rightly guarantees that no punishment shall be cruel. None. Not one. Zero cruel punishments.

Until we execute the man, he is a human being with full rights guaranteed by our Constitution, and it's disturbing to me that even in an example during an argument, anyone would try to imply that this person is less deserving of rights than someone else. It is the path to barbarism... or as Reagan's Surgeon General C. Everett Koop once titled a book, it's The Slide to Auschwitz.

Dr. Koop was, of course, talking about what he considered the American holocaust, the murder of babies in the womb, as he put it, but while you may personally feel that fetuses deserve full legal rights and status as human beings, it has yet to be established by any methodology that they should, let alone do have such rights.

It would have to be established that "an unborn baby" (fetus) possesses rights. That is not true for the criminal, whom we know does possess such rights.

For you to suggest that they are equal, let alone inferior, because of the criminal behavior of the man awaiting execution, means that you have utterly surrendered the moral high ground. You have become as bad as the murderer you are disdaining, because both of you have devalued the life of another citizen. Why then should we listen to you about other groups (such as fetuses) whom you think should have new, heretofore-unrecognized rights?

But the simple fact is that even if I grant your premise, and grant for argument's sake that a fetus deserves the full rights of a developed, sentient person, then it still does not follow that the rights of the individual should be able to override the right to bodily integrity of the mother.

I do not have a right to sustain my life at the even potential risk of another person's life. That goes for fetuses inside a woman's uterus (since fetal development and labor are much more dangerous than an abortion), as well as any other scenario you could devise in which a person's continued survival is dependent on risking the life of another. Government cannot demand that person A risk their life on behalf of person B.

If I was hooked up to another person to sustain my life, they retain the right to sever me from their body (and my life support from their body) at any time. It is a fundamental principle of humanity.

So why are you proposing that we make an exception to this fundamental principle for the sake of fetuses?

Edit to Add: Sorry for the long post, guys. This argument really gets under my skin for a couple of reasons.

"Theology made no provision for evolution. The biblical authors had missed the most important revelation of all! Could it be that they were not really privy to the thoughts of God?" - E. O. Wilson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 8 users Like RocketSurgeon76's post
08-02-2017, 02:25 PM
RE: Christians Move To EXECUTE Women For Abortions
OK, this really is pretty easy. A) The unborn child, created from two living cells, looks like a human, squeals like a human, needs nourishment like a human, feels pain and pleasure like a human, can see and hear like a human, and breaths like a human.
B) The convict on the other hand has had the opportunity to live a righteous life but chose the situations that put him/her where they are. Could there be extenuating circumstances? Possibly, but certainly not every time.
And as far as killing someone humanely, what’s wrong with Hydrogen Sulphide? I was in the chemical business for almost 40 years and lost 2 friends to it and neither one knew what hit them. What’s cruel about that? The only problem is disposing of the left over gas afterward. But it sure does the job it’s intended to do.
BTW Ace, I don’t know where you heard: also aren't their some Christians saying kids dying automatically guarantees them a ticket to heaven ? Some Christians might say that, but I’ve never heard it before. And by the way t-h-e-i-r means; their car, their home, their lifestyle, etc. I think you meant: “Aren’t t-h-e-r-e some Christians…….

Phu Cat
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-02-2017, 02:33 PM
RE: Christians Move To EXECUTE Women For Abortions
(08-02-2017 02:25 PM)Phu Cat Wrote:  OK, this really is pretty easy. A) The unborn child, created from two living cells, looks like a human, squeals like a human, needs nourishment like a human, feels pain and pleasure like a human, can see and hear like a human, and breaths like a human.

Not till it's born. A fetus doesn't even have the beginnings of a functioning brain until about 10 weeks, so there's no chance of it feeling any pain at all before then.

I'm sorry, but your beliefs are much too silly to take seriously. Got anything else we can discuss?
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-02-2017, 03:06 PM
RE: Christians Move To EXECUTE Women For Abortions
(08-02-2017 02:25 PM)Phu Cat Wrote:  A) The unborn child, created from two living cells, looks like a human, squeals like a human, needs nourishment like a human, feels pain and pleasure like a human, can see and hear like a human, and breaths like a human.

You hag around with some pretty funky humans

[Image: pregnancy-week-6-webbed-hands_square.jpg]

Atheism: it's not just for communists any more!
America July 4 1776 - November 8 2016 RIP
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes unfogged's post
08-02-2017, 03:25 PM
RE: Christians Move To EXECUTE Women For Abortions
(08-02-2017 02:25 PM)Phu Cat Wrote:  OK, this really is pretty easy. A) The unborn child, created from two living cells, looks like a human, squeals like a human, needs nourishment like a human, feels pain and pleasure like a human, can see and hear like a human, and breaths like a human.
B) The convict on the other hand has had the opportunity to live a righteous life but chose the situations that put him/her where they are. Could there be extenuating circumstances? Possibly, but certainly not every time.
And as far as killing someone humanely, what’s wrong with Hydrogen Sulphide? I was in the chemical business for almost 40 years and lost 2 friends to it and neither one knew what hit them. What’s cruel about that? The only problem is disposing of the left over gas afterward. But it sure does the job it’s intended to do.

Phu Cat

You need to work on your reading comprehension skills. Seriously. I'll skip the part you addressed to someone else, and only respond to the two points you directed at me... without, apparently, reading what I already wrote.

A) Leaving aside the medical inaccuracy problems with what you just described, please note that in my response I pointed out that despite these being not-yet established concepts under law, EVEN IF I granted your premise that the fetus is fully human and deserving of rights for the sake of argument, it still does not establish that this gives us the legal right to override the bodily integrity of the mother, as it would not even apply to a fully grown (and full-rights) human, such as my own self, under the same legal circumstances.

B) It is irrelevant if the convict has "put themselves there". They are still a citizen and our Constitution forbids deliberately cruel treatment. In my example, I stated that I was presuming the execution was cruelty-free, and did not have a problem with the execution. I did, however, have a problem with your original assertion that the criminal awaiting execution was undeserving of healthcare or humane treatment, prior to that execution, which itself is supposed to be cruelty-free. By saying a person can do something that subjects them to torture or cruelty makes you just as evil as the person you have thus condemned. Coming up with a "new and improved" version of a gas chamber doesn't change the issue and isn't even on-topic.

Now, I happen to be personally against the Death Penalty for other reasons, but just as in my original example, I granted your premise for the sake of argument.

Okay, that's out of the way.

Would you care to actually address the arguments, now? Or do you just prefer to try to throw out emotion-filled bullshit without substantiating any of the concepts you're trying to sell, here, even in the face of people like myself pointing out the glaring flaws in your rationale?

"Theology made no provision for evolution. The biblical authors had missed the most important revelation of all! Could it be that they were not really privy to the thoughts of God?" - E. O. Wilson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like RocketSurgeon76's post
08-02-2017, 03:41 PM
RE: Christians Move To EXECUTE Women For Abortions
(08-02-2017 02:25 PM)Phu Cat Wrote:  [size=medium]OK, this really is pretty easy. A) The unborn child, created from two living cells, looks like a human, squeals like a human, needs nourishment like a human, feels pain and pleasure like a human, can see and hear like a human, and breaths like a human.

Really? That's your argument? Then you should not have a problem with aborting a fetus at up to 9 weeks gestation where it doesn't even look human.
Or up to 20 weeks where it first has a nervous system and brain capable of even possibly feeling pain.
And a baby takes its first breath at birth, not in utero.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Chas's post
08-02-2017, 03:45 PM
RE: Christians Move To EXECUTE Women For Abortions
(08-02-2017 03:25 PM)RocketSurgeon76 Wrote:  
(08-02-2017 02:25 PM)Phu Cat Wrote:  OK, this really is pretty easy. A) The unborn child, created from two living cells, looks like a human, squeals like a human, needs nourishment like a human, feels pain and pleasure like a human, can see and hear like a human, and breaths like a human.
B) The convict on the other hand has had the opportunity to live a righteous life but chose the situations that put him/her where they are. Could there be extenuating circumstances? Possibly, but certainly not every time.
And as far as killing someone humanely, what’s wrong with Hydrogen Sulphide? I was in the chemical business for almost 40 years and lost 2 friends to it and neither one knew what hit them. What’s cruel about that? The only problem is disposing of the left over gas afterward. But it sure does the job it’s intended to do.

Phu Cat

You need to work on your reading comprehension skills. Seriously. I'll skip the part you addressed to someone else, and only respond to the two points you directed at me... without, apparently, reading what I already wrote.

A) Leaving aside the medical inaccuracy problems with what you just described, please note that in my response I pointed out that despite these being not-yet established concepts under law, EVEN IF I granted your premise that the fetus is fully human and deserving of rights for the sake of argument, it still does not establish that this gives us the legal right to override the bodily integrity of the mother, as it would not even apply to a fully grown (and full-rights) human, such as my own self, under the same legal circumstances.

B) It is irrelevant if the convict has "put themselves there". They are still a citizen and our Constitution forbids deliberately cruel treatment. In my example, I stated that I was presuming the execution was cruelty-free, and did not have a problem with the execution. I did, however, have a problem with your original assertion that the criminal awaiting execution was undeserving of healthcare or humane treatment, prior to that execution, which itself is supposed to be cruelty-free. By saying a person can do something that subjects them to torture or cruelty makes you just as evil as the person you have thus condemned. Coming up with a "new and improved" version of a gas chamber doesn't change the issue and isn't even on-topic.

Now, I happen to be personally against the Death Penalty for other reasons, but just as in my original example, I granted your premise for the sake of argument.

Okay, that's out of the way.

Would you care to actually address the arguments, now? Or do you just prefer to try to throw out emotion-filled bullshit without substantiating any of the concepts you're trying to sell, here, even in the face of people like myself pointing out the glaring flaws in your rationale?

Now personally, aside from the rampant issue we have with wrongful convictions, I still hold issue with him for being a, pardon the language, fucking hypocrite. If he's truly pro-life, he should believe that life to be sacred from womb to tomb. He's pro-birth. (And pro humane treatment until he has no issue with someone being put to death chemically.)

Need to think of a witty signature.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Shai Hulud's post
08-02-2017, 05:10 PM
RE: Christians Move To EXECUTE Women For Abortions
(08-02-2017 03:41 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(08-02-2017 02:25 PM)Phu Cat Wrote:  [size=medium]OK, this really is pretty easy. A) The unborn child, created from two living cells, looks like a human, squeals like a human, needs nourishment like a human, feels pain and pleasure like a human, can see and hear like a human, and breaths like a human.

Really? That's your argument? Then you should not have a problem with aborting a fetus at up to 9 weeks gestation where it doesn't even look human.
Or up to 20 weeks where it first has a nervous system and brain capable of even possibly feeling pain.
And a baby takes its first breath at birth, not in utero.

Wow, Chas. I figured you'd point out the more glaring illogic, here... I left it for you!

So let's see, what are the standards he listed?

1) created from two living cells

As opposed to what? Asexually reproducing creatures? Every mammal on the planet qualifies for this one.

2) looks like a human,

[Image: Which-embryo-is-human.jpg]

3) squeals like a human,

Um, wut?

Is this supposed to be a reference to The Silence of the Lambs, when Hannibal Lecter asks Clarice Starling if she hears the screaming of the lambs in her dreams?

Because if it's a movie reference, kudos! If not, you may need to see a psychologist. (Perhaps not that particular one.)

4) needs nourishment like a human,

Again... what's the option? Is there some vertebrate creature on the planet that doesn't?

5) feels pain and pleasure like a human,

Is there some vertebrate creature on the planet that doesn't?

6) can see and hear like a human,

Is there some vertebrate creature on the planet that doesn't?

7) and breaths [sic] like a human.

Is there some verteb... you know what, nevermind.

Name one of those seven criteria that is not also true for every other fetus on the planet... like, say, a pig fetus?

Perhaps it's not so "really pretty easy" as you suppose?

"Theology made no provision for evolution. The biblical authors had missed the most important revelation of all! Could it be that they were not really privy to the thoughts of God?" - E. O. Wilson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes RocketSurgeon76's post
08-02-2017, 07:12 PM
RE: Christians Move To EXECUTE Women For Abortions
Simple fact is, there's no way a government agency should be involved in this most difficult decision taken between a woman (or couple) and doctor.

If you value freedom and personal responsibility, then you have to value the ability of a woman to make those terribly difficult decisions.

If you don't like abortion, fine. Don't have one and your problem is solved.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like Heath_Tierney's post
08-02-2017, 08:03 PM (This post was last modified: 08-02-2017 08:10 PM by Reltzik.)
RE: Christians Move To EXECUTE Women For Abortions
(08-02-2017 02:25 PM)Phu Cat Wrote:  OK, this really is pretty easy. A) The unborn child, created from two living cells, looks like a human, squeals like a human, needs nourishment like a human, feels pain and pleasure like a human, can see and hear like a human, and breaths like a human.

People have already jumped on the inaccuracies of "looks like a human". Let's go through more of the list.

"Breathes like a human". NO. This is just a blatant, flat out, obvious falsehood by someone who doesn't know the first thing about what he's talking about. THERE IS NO AIR IN THE WOMB TO BREATHE.

"Squeals like a human". NO. Not without air to push past the vocal cords. Again, another bald-faced, unapologetic falsehood.

Of course, you might say that it doesn't need to look like a human or breathe like a human or squeal like a human in order to be protected like a human. But if that's your position, why the hell would you bring these things up?

You don't have the first clue what you're talking about. That's not me disagreeing with you on the morality of abortion. That's a separate issue. Even if I was in the anti-abortion camp, I would still be telling you that you don't have the first clue what you're talking about, and also be moderately ashamed that you were on the same side as me. I would feel it urgent to keep you as far away as possible from the work I was doing on this or any other issue so that you couldn't muck it up.

I'll say it again. The pro-life movement is filled with fucking incompetents.

I really, really, really don't like people who try to peddle falsehoods to me. Maybe you actually believe them, which would stop you from being a liar. But it wouldn't put you far short of one in my book, and it tells me and everyone else here that you can't be trusted on your word. If you know that these things are false and say them anyway, you are a liar and what you say cannot be trusted. If you don't know that these things are false, then you are an incompetent incapable of basic fact checking and lacking the humility to even express the uncertainty due to unresearched claims, and what you say cannot be trusted.

Either way, you cannot be trusted. Either way, you are trying to sell us some patently false facts from a position of ego and arrogance, and that deserves our scorn.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 5 users Like Reltzik's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: