When Does Life Begin?

Intrepid wrote:

This thread is not about one believes in God or not.

False claim, religion does play a very large part in the the pro-life / when life begins stance; it is well documented.

Intrepid wrote:

Does creating labels give you a sense of something or other?

Meaningless in the context of your above false claim.

The score so far: 0 for you 5 for me

Your first quote:
1 False claim - as evidenced.

2 Sweeping generalization - fallacy of making a sweeping statement and expecting it to be true of every specific case.

Your second quote:
3 Straw man - due to the rhetorical use of misrepresenting my position.

4 Irrelevant conclusion - diverts attention away from a fact in dispute rather than address it directly.

5 Ad hominem - attacking a claimed characteristic, rather than by addressing the substance of the argument or producing evidence against the claim.

0 Replies

Chumly wrote:

Intrepid wrote:
This thread is not about one believes in God or not.

False claim, religion does play a very large part in the the pro-life / when life begins stance; it is well documented.

It's not only well documented, but any thread that has to do with "life, fetus, abortion, stem cell, "marriage," gays and lesbians, science, evolution, and right-to-life is all connected in one way or another. Many topics on a2k proves this claim.

Intrepid wrote:
Does creating labels give you a sense of something or other?
Meaningless in the context of your above false claim.

Not only is it a "false claim and meaningless," but it also tells us they have nothing material to challenge and reverts to ad hominems.

The score so far: 0 for you 5 for me

Your first quote:
1 False claim - as evidenced.

2 Sweeping generalization - fallacy of making a sweeping statement and expecting it to be true of every specific case.

Your second quote:
3 Straw man - due to the rhetorical use of misrepresenting my position.

4 Irrelevant conclusion - diverts attention away from a fact in dispute rather than address it directly.

5 Ad hominem - attacking a claimed characteristic, rather than by addressing the substance of the argument or producing evidence against the claim.

0 Replies

CI,

I am not sure I have said so but I think your point that resources should first go to fully fledged human beings in need, rather than to what may become human beings at some point is completely reasonable.

I argue that starving and sick and undernourished and ill-treated children worldwide takes precedence over the efforts of religionists to impose on a woman's right to choose.

0 Replies

Chumly wrote:

Intrepid wrote:
This thread is not about one believes in God or not.

False claim, religion does play a very large part in the the pro-life / when life begins stance; it is well documented.

What about this lady's stance? Based on religion?

http://www.fnsa.org/fall98/reed.html

0 Replies

Ms Reed also misses the more important issue of those already born. It's nice she has the luxury to tell her position about the unborn, but she leaves out the more important aspect of those humans already living, starving, and dying. There is no way to equate the already living with the fetus. If that were so, there wouldn't be an issue. All humans would have sufficient food, shelter and health care.

The other point Ms Reed seems to ignore is the simple fact that each woman should have the freedom to choose what's best for herself without any one telling her she must bring any pregnancy to full term without ousiders having any responsibility for the baby after its birth. That is irresponsible imposition; just cheap rhetoric.

If you want to have the responsibility for the mother and child after birth, then you are talking about an irrational situation; there is no way those making the imposition can take on the responsibility. After all, you are a stranger, and don't know the woman, her situation, or why she decides to abort. Those who wish to impose on others don't care what happens.

Talk is cheap. Show us you will take care of the baby after it's born; even then, the simple logistics and logic tells us - it's none of your business.

0 Replies

Hi CI. How was your trip. While you were gone we opened a special discussion for you here:
http://www.able2know.org/forums/viewtopic.php?p=2943280#2943280

0 Replies

Bartikus wrote:

Chumly wrote:
Intrepid wrote:
This thread is not about one believes in God or not.

False claim, religion does play a very large part in the the pro-life / when life begins stance; it is well documented.

What about this lady's stance? Based on religion?

http://www.fnsa.org/fall98/reed.html

The question is not whether the true underlying motives "of this lady's stance" are or are not based on religion.

The question is not whether the true underlying motives "of this lady's stance" are sincerely represented.

The question is not whether the true underlying motives "of this lady's stance" are dishonestly represented.

You are simply trying to use the logical fallacy called the Hasty Generalization. This is the fallacy of generalizing about a population based upon a sample which is too small to be representative.

0 Replies

What about the families that are living in poverty and starving? Should the parents have aborted their children so that THEY would have more to eat without worrying about children? Should the parents have been aborted by their parents because they may be poor in the future?

Those who choose to have their children and not kill them make the decision between the husband and the wife. Those who are posting that the woman should have sole and complete decision making on the future of the fetus are, obviously, not thinking of family values.

[edit]
If I hear that logical fallacy crap from Chumply one more time, I can't be responsible for the scream heard around the world.

0 Replies

"Logical fallacy" you dig your own grave there treppy.

0 Replies

http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y75/Intrepid2/yell.gif

0 Replies

It's called a hasty generalization?

Ok gotcha Chumly.

Last thing we want to do is make those. Thanks for the info.

0 Replies

As an interesting aside however: it can be reasonably argued that a hard atheistic belief as apparently expressed by "this lady's stance" is a form of faith given the difficulty of proving a negative under typical scenarios let alone proving a negative under the guise of vague supernatural claims.

Strong atheism is the explicit affirmation that gods do not exist.

Now it should be understood that the difficulty of proving a negative under the guise of vague supernatural claims doe not in any way lend credence to the plausibly of a god.

0 Replies

Chumly wrote:

mismi40 wrote:
A tree is a tree...the seed will become a tree...both a necessary part of life - the tree however does not feel or think and never will even when it matures to be a huge oak.
The ignorance of cliché literalism rears its ugly head.
The concept of the simple analogy appears beyond your ken.
Alas, ignorance & superstition are the handmaidens of disaster.

umm.....what? What superstition?

0 Replies

Religion is a superstition

One of the greatest of the self-deceptions, religion, is so widely accepted that it is rarely classed as a superstition at all yet from the broadest perspective, all religion is a form of superstition.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superstition

0 Replies

I meant where is the religion/superstition in her statement?

"A tree is a tree...the seed will become a tree...both a necessary part of life - the tree however does not feel or think and never will even when it matures to be a huge oak."

Can you point it out? Can anyone? Pretend i'm a small child...should'nt be much of a stretch for you chum. Or just assume I have severe learning disabilities if that helps to answer.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

These are examples of superstitions provided by your link.

Pregnancy and baby superstitions

There are many superstitions connected with fertility, pregnancy, labor and birth, and caring for the baby in its vital most vulnerable early years.

* A broom sweeps away the bad luck and evil spells that cause infertility. (Voodoo)
* If a woman puts two spoons in her saucer, she'll have ginger twins. (UK)
* If children pile cabbage stalks around the doors and windows of the house on Halloween, the fairies will bring them a new brother or sister. (Scotland)
* The baby will be born with a fish-head if the mother doesn't give in to her craving to eat fish. (French Canada)
* If a mother wears high heels during pregnancy, her baby will become cross-eyed. (Guyana)
* A mother should throw salt three times behind herself shortly before her 'Due Date' in order to ease her labour. (UK)

0 Replies

Bartikus wrote:

I meant where is the religion/superstition in her statement?

"A tree is a tree...the seed will become a tree...both a necessary part of life - the tree however does not feel or think and never will even when it matures to be a huge oak."

Can you point it out? Can anyone? Pretend i'm a small child...should'nt be much of a stretch for you chum. Or just assume I have severe learning disabilities if that helps to answer.

The tree can't speak, eat meat, or cry either. The analogy is just about the biological development.

The statement that "both are a nessisary part of life" is the religious part. Emphasis on the word "nessisary." Nature is in no way threatened by the absence of a tree, or a seed. Your philosophy that man is a special part of nature because it thinks and feels is also evident in your bolded part of your post. Man is no more significant or important than any creature in existance. Humans certianly have a way of flourishing, but it's mostly because we've adapted to the point where instead of us adapting to our enviroment, we adapt the enviroment to us. If other creatures were to do this, they'd see a significant advantage.

Because it's the holidays. I've been thinking about deer hunting. Any conservationist will tell you that deer hunting is actually a good thing. Their basis for this us usually population control. Their enviroment has been so dramatically augmented by human development that their natural reproductive patterns actually exceed their resources.

I'm never gong to argue abortion as a means of population control, but I will reiterate that we control the enviroment and drive most of the resources. Imagine what happens to us when we both control the resources and we exceed our supply? We will be in a very serious situation.

T
K
O

0 Replies

Apparently, you read into mismi's statement that I did not.

I thought she just meant that trees produce seeds and vice versa in order for trees to continue to come about.

Without seeds.....trees will cease...without trees....seeds will cease.

Although, I could be wrong as to what she was saying.

The other comment I thought was her just drawing a distinction between plants and people.

Although, this could be wrong as well. She might have been talking about the differences between communism and democracy or the distance between stars or something.

I apologize for the confusion but, originally intended for chum to answer since he was the one who seen religious superstition in her comment.

Maybe you know exactly what he meant and was just speaking for him. Although...this could be wrong too.

0 Replies

That is really what I meant Bartikus - just simply saying that I felt the analogy of the tree was not a real good one considering.... though a tree is important (ecologically speaking - maybe necessity was an overstatement...) it really does not apply well here - to me anyway...and yes - the whole circle of life thing...seed becomes tree...tree produces seeds...but other than that - really had no deep theological, ecological meaning...

0 Replies

Whether religion is or is not a superstition has nothing to do with the topic of this thread.

0 Replies

mismi40 wrote:

That is really what I meant Bartikus - just simply saying that I felt the analogy of the tree was not a real good one considering.... though a tree is important (ecologically speaking - maybe necessity was an overstatement...) it really does not apply well here - to me anyway...and yes - the whole circle of life thing...seed becomes tree...tree produces seeds...but other than that - really had no deep theological, ecological meaning...

I kinda thought so. You seem like a pretty straightforward kind of person to me. Simple folk like myself appreciate that. I was beginning to question my sanity just a little. I try so hard to understand where some people are coming from and DO understand or can relate to many points brought up.

Other times, I feel like my sanity is peering over an edge of some kind trying to understand. I don't know if it's because i'm not smart enough or what but,.....I know I don't like it much. lol

Things have gotten extremely complicated for me in various times in my past and it's very difficult. My heart goes out to anyone who struggles with such things. Not everything I come across is clear black or white but, sometimes I think people complicate things unnecessarily at times.

As if life does'nt get complicated enough all on it's own without our help right? lol I have difficulty making comparisons or remotely equating humans to trees as well. They are both alive but.....my garage is made of wood (among other things).

I know trees are important in producing oxygen(and other things) and am compelled to try to conserve as much as I can. I think trees are beautiful especially in the fall season in my neck of the woods.

take care mismi! God bless y'all! U 2 gramps. lol

If I need to rethink that nickname neo...just let me know. Very Happy

0 Replies

When Does Life Begin?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know