When Does Life Begin?

real life wrote:

So all that is required for me to lose my rights is to be 'unaware', eh?

If I am asleep, I am open season. You replied that surely I would respond when I awake, and that is true.........if I awake.

I believe I addressed this already.

Quote:

You are at least candid when you state that your view means that nobody has any 'rights'. The entire pro-abortion community shares that essential similarity, but not your honesty.

Foley, what you don't understand about RL is that this is the exact senario that he wants from you. He wishes to make you into an example ; use you to try and paint a window into what he wants Pro-choice to be.

You've been played.

BTW Foley, Welcome to A2k. As you will notice, as the conversation continues is that RL no longer responds to my posts. He can't handle logic or complex issues. There are some pro-life people on the forum that are more rational, but they don't post in these threads as much. I often wonder if it is a desire to disassociate with RL's stance on the issue.

RL views the Prochoice stance to be an extreme view, when in reality it is a more moderate one.

Foley, a warning. Don't let RL manipulate you. He wants you to defend the arguement he needs you to defend.

If he believes that the prochoice movements only stance is that the unborn is NOT human, then he will guide you to defend that.

The issue of the unborn is the issue of when we inherit life rights so says society. The related issues of child welfare etc must also be discussed. The issue is very complex. RL wants it to be simple, therefore he will demand a simple arguement.

0 Replies

RLs position is more than just simplistic; it's hypocritical. He wants to protect the embryo but does nothing about those babies already living. It's about as extreme as one can be on any issue; one-sided without considering everything else. Real's life is abysmal; he has only one goal in life that doesn't even concern him.

0 Replies

Speaking of hypocrisy, are you the same 'cicerone imposter' who in the past has claimed that you do not seek to push your standard of right and wrong on anyone but yourself? Laughing

(Or are there two A2K members using the same handle?)

How does a moral relativist justify telling anyone they are wrong about anything?

0 Replies

How does a moral absolutist justify telling anyone they are wrong about anything?

0 Replies

Chumly wrote:

real life wrote:
Speaking of hypocrisy, are you the same 'cicerone imposter' who in the past has claimed that you do not seek to push your standard of right and wrong on anyone but yourself?

(Or are there two A2K members using the same handle?)

How does a moral relativist justify telling anyone they are wrong about anything?

How does a moral absolutist justify telling anyone they are wrong about anything?

My position is consistent.

The relativist's position is inconsistent and illogical.

A relativist will state that there is no 'right' and 'wrong'.

But then the relativist will turn on a dime to accuse an absolutist of 'doing wrong' and tell him what a 'bad person' he is if the absolutist attempts to live and speak according to his own view.

The relativist will chide him that the only 'right' thing to do is to be a relativist. Any other position, he says, is 'bad'; it's 'just wrong' doncha know.

Laughing

An honest relativist is, at best, confused.

He must mentally accept contradictory views of morality as all equally valid and must never indicate that ANYthing is really 'wrong.'

Not terrorism.

Not cannibalism.

Not torture.

Not mass murder.

'It's all just a difference of opinion, that's all,' he says.

0 Replies

real life wrote:

My position is consistent.

On what precisely do you claim your position is consistent on? By what logic do you maintain that even if your position is presumably consistent that infers in any sense you must be correct?

real life wrote:

The relativist's position is inconsistent and illogical.

What exactly is this relativist's position you refer to? Where are all these so-called relativists you speak of that adhere to your claims? What evidence do you have that your claim is the position I maintain?

real life wrote:

A relativist will state that there is no 'right' and 'wrong'.

What precisely is your definition of "right"?
What precisely is your definition of "wrong"?
What evidence do you have that your claim is the position I maintain?

real life wrote:

But then the relativist will turn on a dime to accuse an absolutist of 'doing wrong' and tell him what a 'bad person' he is if the absolutist attempts to live and speak according to his own view.

Where are all these so-called relativists you speak of that adhere to your claims? What evidence do you have that your claim is the position I maintain?

real life wrote:

The relativist will chide him that the only 'right' thing to do is to be a relativist. Any other position, he says, is 'bad'; it's 'just wrong' doncha know.

Where are all these so-called relativists you speak of that adhere to your claims? What evidence do you have that your claim is the position I maintain?

real life wrote:

An honest relativist is, at best, confused.

Where are all these so-called relativists you speak of that adhere to your claims? What evidence do you have that your claim is the position I maintain?

real life wrote:

He must mentally accept contradictory views of morality as all equally valid and must never indicate that ANYthing is really 'wrong.'
Not terrorism.

Not cannibalism.

Not torture.

Not mass murder.

'It's all just a difference of opinion, that's all,' he says.

0 Replies

Chumly wrote:

....What evidence do you have that your claim is the position I maintain?...........

Where are all these so-called relativists you speak of that adhere to your claims? What evidence do you have that your claim is the position I maintain?

Why did you not answer the first question I asked....."How does a moral absolutist justify telling anyone they are wrong about anything?"

Do you feel you do not need to answer the first question I asked....."How does a moral absolutist justify telling anyone they are wrong about anything?"

Can you answer the first question I asked....."How does a moral absolutist justify telling anyone they are wrong about anything?"

Will you answer the first question I asked....."How does a moral absolutist justify telling anyone they are wrong about anything?"

When will you answer the first question I asked....."How does a moral absolutist justify telling anyone they are wrong about anything?"

Where did I say anything about you?

Try the decaf next time. Laughing

0 Replies

Chumly = Relativist; if your cliams doesn't apply to one, how does it apply to the "group?"

0 Replies

Chumly wrote:

How does a moral absolutist justify telling anyone they are wrong about anything?

The real challenge is for a absolutist telling anyone that they are doing something right.

0 Replies

It would be amusing to hear an absolutist rationally try and demonstrate that someone did something right; assuming (as I gather is the point of your inference) we found an absolutist willing to claim someone did something right.

We can all hope Real Life will answer:

.......please let me know your moral absolutist position on feeding my dog less Milk-Bones to stop her farting. Is this a morally good thing or a morally bad thing, and why? On what absolute basis did you make this moral dog fart assessment?

....."How does a moral absolutist justify telling anyone they are wrong about anything?"

Good entertainment is getting hard to find these days!

0 Replies

Chumly wrote:

It would be amusing to hear an absolutist rationally try and demonstrate that someone did something right; assuming (as I gather is the point of your inference) we found an absolutist willing to claim someone did something right.

We can all hope Real Life will answer:

.......please let me know your moral absolutist position on feeding my dog less Milk-Bones to stop her farting. Is this a morally good thing or a morally bad thing, and why? On what absolute basis did you make this moral dog fart assessment?

....."How does a moral absolutist justify telling anyone they are wrong about anything?"

Good entertainment is getting hard to find these days!

Be careful!

RL will only manipulate what you say to mean that you are comparing your dog's farts with the unborn!

0 Replies

Funny!

0 Replies

Chumly wrote:

It would be amusing to hear an absolutist rationally try and demonstrate that someone did something right; assuming (as I gather is the point of your inference) we found an absolutist willing to claim someone did something right.

We can all hope Real Life will answer:

.......please let me know your moral absolutist position on feeding my dog less Milk-Bones to stop her farting. Is this a morally good thing or a morally bad thing, and why? On what absolute basis did you make this moral dog fart assessment?

....."How does a moral absolutist justify telling anyone they are wrong about anything?"

Good entertainment is getting hard to find these days!

What is truly funny is watching you lose it because I 'did not answer your question' :

Chumly wrote:

Why did you not answer the first question I asked....."How does a moral absolutist justify telling anyone they are wrong about anything?"

Do you feel you do not need to answer the first question I asked....."How does a moral absolutist justify telling anyone they are wrong about anything?"

Can you answer the first question I asked....."How does a moral absolutist justify telling anyone they are wrong about anything?"

Will you answer the first question I asked....."How does a moral absolutist justify telling anyone they are wrong about anything?"

When will you answer the first question I asked....."How does a moral absolutist justify telling anyone they are wrong about anything?"

when all the while your question was IN RESPONSE to a question that I had asked AND YOU DID NOT ANSWER! Laughing

Now, THAT'S good comedy!

As I mentioned before, Relativists send to the field of play neither defense, nor offense, just a Punter.

Nice punt, Chumly. Laughing

0 Replies

The only comedy on these threads is you, real. Your moralist position to protect "life" is a sham that has no moral or legal basis. You continue to support some theory that a zygote is life that requires the protection of laws over the mother and everything else. Your twisted arguments for cells' legal and moral rights is laughable.

0 Replies

Real Life:
How many angels can dance on the point of a needle?

Chumly:
Count them and let me know OK?

0 Replies

Some shark's young cannibalize each other in the mother's uterus. It would be great fun to see real life rationalize "god's creatures" cannibalizing each other in utero.

0 Replies

Chumly wrote:

Some shark's young cannibalize each other in the mother's uterus. It would be great fun to see real life rationalize "god's creatures" cannibalizing each other in utero.

I do not defend the notion that animal behavior is an acceptable standard for human behavior.

Do you?

Such a notion has never been my position, nor the position of any Christian that I know.

Where did you get the idea that it was?

Is the fact that some animals eat their young a good rationale for abortion, in your opinion?

What about animals that kill their mates? Acceptable human behavior?

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

The only comedy on these threads is you, real.

Thank you but you've mistaken me for someone else. Let's see whose position is humorous.

cicerone imposter wrote:

Your moralist position to protect "life" is a sham that has no moral (basis)

It is pretty funny to hear a relativist try to claim that some moral views are baseless. I thought you believed it was OK for all individuals to hold whatever moral views they wished?

What are you talking about 'moral basis'? Are you alluding to an objective morality? I thought you didn't believe in such.

cicerone imposter wrote:

or legal basis.

Again good humor here. A circular argument . In effect, 'the unborn SHOULD have no legal rights because they CURRENTLY HAVE NO legal rights.'

cicerone imposter wrote:

You continue to support some theory that a zygote is life

Please provide some MEDICAL evidence that the unborn is NOT a living human being.

It is hilarious that you are unable to do so, nor will you even attempt it.

cicerone imposter wrote:

that requires the protection of laws over the mother and everything else.

It follows that if the unborn is a living human being, that the protection of law would be the logical outcome. Just read the MAJORITY opinion in Roe v Wade, if you don't believe me.

cicerone imposter wrote:

Your twisted arguments for cells' legal and moral rights is laughable.

As we see, you've provided humor aplenty.

Perhaps you consider the arguments 'twisted' because you just don't understand them.

This actually seems likely since you consistently are unable to answer them with any medical evidence, nor with anything but circular argumentation , political sloganeering, and jaunts off topic to accuse pro-lifers of all kinds of evil motives (and you call yourself a relativist!).

0 Replies

Personally, I imagine most pro-lifers motives are (what I would call) "good". They are almost certainly "good" from their own perspective. (I imagine it is less common for them to see us (pro-choicers) the same way.) Getting past that error would save a lot a confusion and mistrust on both sides.

0 Replies

real life wrote:

cicerone imposter wrote:
The only comedy on these threads is you, real.

Thank you but you've mistaken me for someone else. Let's see whose position is humorous.

cicerone imposter wrote:
Your moralist position to protect "life" is a sham that has no moral (basis)

It is pretty funny to hear a relativist try to claim that some moral views are baseless. I thought you believed it was OK for all individuals to hold whatever moral views they wished

Your applying absolutist thought to be applicable to a reltvist view? It doesn't work that way. Relativists don't lose their right to be critical of others.

Quote:

What are you talking about 'moral basis'? Are you alluding to an objective morality? I thought you didn't believe in such.

cicerone imposter wrote:
or legal basis.

Again good humor here. A circular argument . In effect, 'the unborn SHOULD have no legal rights because they CURRENTLY HAVE NO legal rights.'

The same could be said for your arguement: "Humans have rights so anything human should have rights."

Quote:

cicerone imposter wrote:
You continue to support some theory that a zygote is life

Please provide some MEDICAL evidence that the unborn is NOT a living human being.

It is hilarious that you are unable to do so, nor will you even attempt it.

cicerone imposter wrote:
that requires the protection of laws over the mother and everything else.

It follows that if the unborn is a living human being, that the protection of law would be the logical outcome. Just read the MAJORITY opinion in Roe v Wade, if you don't believe me.

You literally cut up CI's post mid sentance. It's nobody's job to prove to you what is irrelavant to discussion! Why do you insist on asking your useless question over and over and over...

Quote:

cicerone imposter wrote:
Your twisted arguments for cells' legal and moral rights is laughable.

As we see, you've provided humor aplenty.

Perhaps you consider the arguments 'twisted' because you just don't understand them.

This actually seems likely since you consistently are unable to answer them with any medical evidence, nor with anything but circular argumentation , political sloganeering, and jaunts off topic to accuse pro-lifers of all kinds of evil motives (and you call yourself a relativist!).

Tell me RL, what does the Pro-choice movement want from you? What's the agenda you fear?

0 Replies

When Does Life Begin?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know