0
   

When Does Life Begin?

 
 
fungotheclown
 
  1  
Reply Mon 5 Nov, 2007 03:00 pm
The right to life is a myth. To me, a right is something which it is immoral to take away under any circumstances. Since I can think of situations where it would not only morally acceptable, but morally expected to kill another human being (such as protecting innocent lives), life does not fit my definition of a right. The only thing that does is speech. I cannot think of a single reason why it would be acceptable to take away a person's right to express their opinion.
0 Replies
 
Bartikus
 
  1  
Reply Mon 5 Nov, 2007 03:02 pm
fungotheclown wrote:
The right to life is a myth. To me, a right is something which it is immoral to take away under any circumstances. Since I can think of situations where it would not only morally acceptable, but morally expected to kill another human being (such as protecting innocent lives), life does not fit my definition of a right. The only thing that does is speech. I cannot think of a single reason why it would be acceptable to take away a person's right to express their opinion.


Would the unborn be an example of an 'innocent life'?

Many unborn are silenced before they are ever able to express their opinions.

I can't think of a single reason why it should be acceptable either.

The U.S Declaration of Independence as written would then be based on myth then right?

Zombies do bite! So do the redcoats.
0 Replies
 
Intrepid
 
  1  
Reply Mon 5 Nov, 2007 04:00 pm
cicerone imposter wrote:
Bartikus, What you see through your lens is defective. It has something to do with your brains that have been injured over the years of your upbringing.


Another well thought out and researched post by C.I. Rolling Eyes
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Mon 5 Nov, 2007 04:09 pm
Nah, it's easy to see with so much evidence from your own mouths/posts. You are radicals without any idea what life is all about. You want to impose your personal religious beliefs on people you don't even know, and your main thrust is the cell that doesn't have a brain. Just like you 'all.
0 Replies
 
Diest TKO
 
  1  
Reply Mon 5 Nov, 2007 04:20 pm
Bartikus wrote:
Diest TKO wrote:
Bartikus wrote:

So if the woman does'nt want it.....it's not a human life?

If she does............it is?

No. If the woman doesn't want it, it's still a form of human life. The status of human life does not secure the unborn's rights. The mother being custodian of those rights defines them.

T
K
O


Thanks for a straight answer......would the second part be correct then in that human rights would then be granted to the unborn by the mother?

So just because one can pass as human....does not entitle them to human rights?

I'm not sure what is unclear. I'm talking about rights, adjective "human" or not, I believe the mother is the custodian of those rights and that she can to or not to extend those rights to the unborn.

Take the survey.
K
O
0 Replies
 
Diest TKO
 
  1  
Reply Mon 5 Nov, 2007 04:22 pm
Bartikus wrote:

Many unborn are silenced before they are ever able to express their opinions.

Be careful Bart, if this is the path you decide to take the conversation, you ope up the dialogue back up to discussion on the cognative abilities of the unborn. This is probably not the direction you want to take the conversation.

T
K
O
0 Replies
 
Bartikus
 
  1  
Reply Mon 5 Nov, 2007 05:17 pm
cicerone imposter wrote:
Nah, it's easy to see with so much evidence from your own mouths/posts. You are radicals without any idea what life is all about. You want to impose your personal religious beliefs on people you don't even know, and your main thrust is the cell that doesn't have a brain. Just like you 'all.


What's coming out of your mouth here?

Is this an example of a radical wanting to impose his religious beliefs on someone he does'nt know?

here:
http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2007/oct/07100503.html

It's an atheist pro lifer.???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Mon 5 Nov, 2007 05:27 pm
It doesn't matter whether you are a religious nut or a Muslim nut; a nut is a nut no matter what stripe.

What "religious' belief" are you talking about? I'm not the one trying to impose my beliefs on people I don't even know; I don't try to impose my belief on people I know. I believe people has the ability to decide for themselves what is in the best interest for themselves. What's your problem? Please be succinct - if that's possible.
0 Replies
 
Bartikus
 
  1  
Reply Mon 5 Nov, 2007 05:35 pm
Diest TKO wrote:
Bartikus wrote:

Many unborn are silenced before they are ever able to express their opinions.

Be careful Bart, if this is the path you decide to take the conversation, you ope up the dialogue back up to discussion on the cognative abilities of the unborn. This is probably not the direction you want to take the conversation.

T
K
O


Many who champion abortion in our culture today are willing to acknowledge, on the basis of what we know about human genesis and embryology, that the organism living in the body of a pregnant woman is biologically a member of the human species (I will not here consider the issues raised by identical twinning, save to suggest that in identical twinning one living biological organism was present from conception/fertilization and that, prior to implantation another genetically identical biological organism was generated by a process akin to cloning), but they maintain that this biologically human organism is not a person. According to these people (among them Peter Singer, Michael Tooley, and a host of other abortion advocates), a person is a subject aware of itself and capable of relating to other selves; for them a criterion of personhood is the exercise of cognitive abilities. Since the human biological organism within the body of a pregnant woman is definitely not a conscious subject aware of itself as a self and capable of relating to other conscious subjects, they conclude that it cannot be regarded as a person or the subject of rights that need to be respected by others. They claim that at most this biological organism is a potential person, not an actual person.

The fatal flaw in the reasoning of these advocates of abortion is their failure to distinguish between an active potency and a passive potency or between a radical capacity and a developed capacity. If a passive potency is to be actualized, an extrinsic efficient cause must intervene (e.g., human sperm and ova have the passive potency to become a living biological member of the human species, but this potency becomes actualized only when the sperm is united to the ovum and fertilization occurs). But the living biological organism brought into existence when fertilization is completed has within itself the active potency to develop its own capacity to engage in cognitive activities, which are predictable of members of the human species. Although this living member of the human species does not have the developed capacity to engage in cognitive activities, it has the radical capacity, rooted in its being, to develop the capacity to do so. Similarly, an eaglet has the radical capacity or active potency to engage in the activities predictable of eagles, such as soaring in flight. But in order for the eaglet to exercise its capacity and to soar in flight, this capacity needs to be developed, but it could not be developed were it not present to begin with. Thus the living members of the human species present in the bodies of pregnant women have the radical capacity or active potency to engage in the activities predictable of the human species (e.g., exercising cognitive acts), but in order for them to engage in these activities they need to develop them from within. From this it follows that they are not potential persons, but persons with potential.

Similarly, once living organisms have developed the capacities rooted in their being the kind of beings they are, the exercise of these capacities can be inhibited, perhaps permanently, by disease or accident, but they do not cease being the kind of beings they are. Thus if an eagle's wings are broken, it can no longer soar above the ground in flight, but it remains the kind of being it was and is, an eagle, with the radical capacity, rooted in its being, to soar above the ground. Similarly, some members of the human species may be prevented by disease or accident from the exercise of the activities for which they have a radical capacity or active potency, but they remain the kind of beings they are, human beings, who have the radical capacity, rooted in their being human, to do what human persons do. They are and remain persons.

http://www.christendom-awake.org/pages/may/rights.html
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Mon 5 Nov, 2007 05:50 pm
Yup, brain-washed through and through. No hope of human redemption. Their wires/brains have been damaged for all time.

They think their definition of "life" for a human cell has all the rights and privileges of those already alive and living.

They just don't give a shite about all those already alive - without parents, starving, without shelter, no health care, infanticide, all those children getting killed in Iraq, and those millions in Africa with HIV/AIDS, those suffering from floods, tsunamis, earthquakes, and all those suffering in this world. They want to save a human cell/embryo in a complete stranger. There's no cure for stupid.
0 Replies
 
Bartikus
 
  1  
Reply Mon 5 Nov, 2007 05:51 pm
cicerone imposter wrote:
It doesn't matter whether you are a religious nut or a Muslim nut; a nut is a nut no matter what stripe.

What "religious' belief" are you talking about? I'm not the one trying to impose my beliefs on people I don't even know; I don't try to impose my belief on people I know. I believe people has the ability to decide for themselves what is in the best interest for themselves. What's your problem? Please be succinct - if that's possible.


I was just wondering if you thought the atheist pro lifer was a radical who wants to impose his religious beliefs on another? He makes the same arguments.

I thought the question was simple enough.

You apparently detect a problem and seem defensive. Is their a problem with the question?
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Mon 5 Nov, 2007 05:53 pm
Show me an atheist pro-lifer - like you?
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Mon 5 Nov, 2007 05:54 pm
What's the matter? Can't stand on your own religious beliefs?
0 Replies
 
Bartikus
 
  1  
Reply Mon 5 Nov, 2007 05:55 pm
IF pro lifers can get a pro choicer to see the unborn as worthy as a dog.....how will they ever regard them as human?
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Mon 5 Nov, 2007 05:55 pm
Show me an atheist pro-lifer who wants to impose his belief on a woman he/she doesn't even know at the time of conception?
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Mon 5 Nov, 2007 06:01 pm
Bartikus wrote:
IF pro lifers can get a pro choicer to see the unborn as worthy as a dog.....how will they ever regard them as human?


That's your problem, isn't it? It's your opinion/imagination. You want to try applying other characteristics to people you don't know? You ARE a loser by definition. Trying to question others you don't identify about your own beliefs. You don't even have common sense.
0 Replies
 
real life
 
  1  
Reply Mon 5 Nov, 2007 06:03 pm
fungotheclown wrote:
The right to life is a myth. To me, a right is something which it is immoral to take away under any circumstances. Since I can think of situations where it would not only morally acceptable, but morally expected to kill another human being (such as protecting innocent lives), life does not fit my definition of a right. The only thing that does is speech. I cannot think of a single reason why it would be acceptable to take away a person's right to express their opinion.


Clever how you initially state that freedom of speech should be absolute, but then quickly narrow that to refer to the right of 'expressing an opinion'.
0 Replies
 
Bartikus
 
  1  
Reply Mon 5 Nov, 2007 06:09 pm
cicerone imposter wrote:
Bartikus wrote:
IF pro lifers can get a pro choicer to see the unborn as worthy as a dog.....how will they ever regard them as human?


That's your problem, isn't it? It's your opinion/imagination. You want to try applying other characteristics to people you don't know? You ARE a loser by definition. Trying to question others you don't identify about your own beliefs. You don't even have common sense.


What do you offer other than your opinion/ imagination?

I'm a loser by your standards? I take that as a compliment. You are thee winningest winner I've ever seen.

I'm an uncommon guy to your common sense.
0 Replies
 
Intrepid
 
  1  
Reply Mon 5 Nov, 2007 06:10 pm
cicerone imposter wrote:
Nah, it's easy to see with so much evidence from your own mouths/posts. You are radicals without any idea what life is all about. You want to impose your personal religious beliefs on people you don't even know, and your main thrust is the cell that doesn't have a brain. Just like you 'all.


You, sir, are talking out of your hat. You have no idea what you are talking about. How do I know that? Simple. I am not a radical. I certainly do know what life is all about. I have NEVER tried to impose my beliefs on anybody else. I have put my beliefs out there, yes. Have I tried to impose them on anybody? No. Have I disagreed with other posters? Yes. The cell that doesn't have a brain? Well, um, err... oh, never mind.
0 Replies
 
Bartikus
 
  1  
Reply Mon 5 Nov, 2007 06:10 pm
cicerone imposter wrote:
What's the matter? Can't stand on your own religious beliefs?


I don't have religious beliefs.

I have faith....you would do well to learn the difference.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

700 Inconsistencies in the Bible - Discussion by onevoice
Why do we deliberately fool ourselves? - Discussion by coincidence
Spirituality - Question by Miller
Oneness vs. Trinity - Discussion by Arella Mae
give you chills - Discussion by Bartikus
Evidence for Evolution! - Discussion by Bartikus
Evidence of God! - Discussion by Bartikus
One World Order?! - Discussion by Bartikus
God loves us all....!? - Discussion by Bartikus
The Preambles to Our States - Discussion by Charli
 
  1. Forums
  2. » When Does Life Begin?
  3. » Page 120
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 06/27/2025 at 04:35:53