When Does Life Begin?

OK, show me precisely where you obtained this quote and I'll let you know what I think about your claim that "Peter Singer advocates infanticide".

0 Replies

real life wrote:

Chumly wrote:
real life wrote:
Chumly wrote:
real life wrote:
Chumly wrote:
Ever more mind numbingly inane would be to take the time to quote all your reams of nonsensical specious religious gibberish referring to your perception of what a human being is from a fundamentalist Christian perspective and then to filter from that even an inkling of an intelligent dialogue. What a nightmare that would be!

Can't back up your claim, eh?

Should be easy, if it was true.
Another hint: Your support of ID embraces a delineation of a human being (false though it is).

Quote something where I have used a 'theological claim' to support my pro-life view, Chumly.

My views on creation have never been used to support my pro-life view. If you think they have, ( and you have claimed so ) then prove it.
You tell me what ID means if not in part to define what a human being is.

Then you tell me how this definition of a human being does not affect your anti-choice position. This might be entertaining if nothing else!

You have said I used 'theological claims' to support my pro-life view.

Produce some quotes to show that you are telling the truth.

You are trying to get me to make the claim now, because you know you cannot find any evidence to back up your statement that I have ever done so.

Nope, only that it would be ever so mind numbingly inane to take the time to quote all your reams of nonsensical specious religious giigersih referring to your perception of what a human being is from a fundamentalist Christian perspective and then to filter from that even an inkling of an intelligent dialogue. Hint: your support of ID is not an acronym for intelligent dialogue let alone an intelligent design.

0 Replies

real life wrote:

Perhaps I do not follow your scenario because you have not provided details.

Exactly how have I come to know in this scenario that I will be able to save 50 people, but that I would 'certainly' die?

If you want to follow up on this with details, put them in a new thread and we'll have a discussion there so as not to derail this discussion

Neve mind. You'll just keep dodging. But that is an answer in itself. In such a situation, while I ran for the hills, not willing to give my life for strangers, you'd be standing around trying to not see the problem, which would pretty much give the same result.

0 Replies

Cyracuz wrote:

real life wrote:
Perhaps I do not follow your scenario because you have not provided details.

Exactly how have I come to know in this scenario that I will be able to save 50 people, but that I would 'certainly' die?

If you want to follow up on this with details, put them in a new thread and we'll have a discussion there so as not to derail this discussion

Neve mind. You'll just keep dodging. But that is an answer in itself. In such a situation, while I ran for the hills, not willing to give my life for strangers, you'd be standing around trying to not see the problem, which would pretty much give the same result.

I don't know why my answer that I would attempt to save them, even at risk of my own life, doesn't answer your question.

You want to assume that I would have foreknowledge of the result. I think that's an invalid assumption.

0 Replies

Cyracuz's challenge to real makes more sense than people realize. If real is so concerned about those he doesn't know to save their lives to sacrifice his own, why hasn't he done anything about the starving children of this world? Is a bus full of people more important than those outside of it? The challenge becomes non-relevant in the world of reality.

According to today's San Jose Mercury News, Editorial Section, there are 30,000 children starving each day from poverty. Real is only concerned about the unborn, and wants to change the laws to protect the embryo, but does nothing to save the children already alive. He's a dangerous HYPOCRITE!

0 Replies

A paragraph from Nicholas D. Kristof's article:

"In Cameroon, we interviewed a doctor about maternal mortality - and then found a woman named Prudence, a mother of three, dying in the next room. A dead fetus was decomposing inside her, setting off a raging infection, but the doctor didn't care about her. And so she died."

Sounds like real in the flesh.

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

Cyracuz's challenge to real makes more sense than people realize. If real is so concerned about those he doesn't know to save their lives to sacrifice his own, why hasn't he done anything about the starving children of this world? Is a bus full of people more important than those outside of it? The challenge becomes non-relevant in the world of reality.

According to today's San Jose Mercury News, Editorial Section, there are 30,000 children starving each day from poverty. Real is only concerned about the unborn, and wants to change the laws to protect the embryo, but does nothing to save the children already alive. He's a dangerous HYPOCRITE!

Hi CI,

Why don't you explain to us again how you do not apply your standard of morality to anyone but yourself?

How do you, as a moral relativist, justify telling ANYONE that their moral view is wrong?

Are not all moral standards subjective, and therefore equally valid, CI?

If they are not, then where do you get the absolute standard of morality against which you are judging others?

I am consistent in my views and my behavior. Whether you agree with my view or not, I am consistent. (But how could you disagree? All moral views are subjective, right?)

You, on the other hand, are completely inconsistent in your purported view on morality versus your actual behavior, CI. You claim to believe all moral standards are valid, yet you practice something completely different.

There's a word for that.

0 Replies

And while you're at it, CI, why don't you offer proof of your charge that I don't care about children?

Got any evidence? Or do you simply throw out wild accusations for your own entertainment.

I would love to see you try to offer evidence of your ridiculous fantasies.

0 Replies

CI - I have a suggestion. Being that RL wants to play semantics with the word "wrong," use "false" or "invalid" in it's place.

This may however be far to complex for RL's elementary mind.

0 Replies

real life wrote:

I don't know why my answer that I would attempt to save them, even at risk of my own life, doesn't answer your question.

Because I am not talking about risk. Risk means "there might be a chance that you will die". I am talking about the certainty that you will die if you save those people. A slightly different scenario.

To put it simply: Would you die to save a stranger's life?

0 Replies

real, The proof is in your extremism; to save the embryo/fetus while 30,000 children die from starvation every day. Your emphasis should be on the "now living," but that concept seems to escape your brain.

We don't need any medical definition of those 30,000 starving children.

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

According to today's San Jose Mercury News, Editorial Section, there are 30,000 children starving each day from poverty.

All other considerations aside I think all posters can agree this is an extremely wanting situation.

And more to the point of this thread I agree with CI that children starving takes precedence over anti-choice sophistry.

0 Replies

Cyracuz wrote:

real life wrote:
I don't know why my answer that I would attempt to save them, even at risk of my own life, doesn't answer your question.

Because I am not talking about risk. Risk means "there might be a chance that you will die". I am talking about the certainty that you will die if you save those people. A slightly different scenario.

To put it simply: Would you die to save a stranger's life?

As I said, yes I would if need be. But to assume that one would have the foreknowledge of one's 'certain' death is a fallacy. That is why your scenario does not truly reflect reality.

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

real, The proof is in your extremism; to save the embryo/fetus while 30,000 children die from starvation every day. Your emphasis should be on the "now living," but that concept seems to escape your brain.

We don't need any medical definition of those 30,000 starving children.

Over 400,000 children are intentionally and brutally terminated by barbaric , bloody abortion procedures just in the USA alone each year. Count them up worldwide and the number that are intentionally butchered is staggering.

Does that number also register with you? No, because you define away their humanity and close your eyes to serve your political preferences.

An abortion that slices an unborn child limb from limb and leaves him a bloody pulp of flesh and bone that is thrown down the drain or tossed in the dumpster is not politically suitable for you, so you ignore it.

0 Replies

So, real, what have you done to save all those aborted fetus? Your losing the battle on both fronts.

0 Replies

Real life believes "Over 400,000 children are intentionally and brutally terminated by barbaric , bloody abortion procedures just in the USA alone each year" and said procedures "slices an unborn child limb from limb and leaves him a bloody pulp of flesh and bone that is thrown down the drain or tossed in the dumpster".

Maybe he thinks the infidels eat the "bloody pulp of flesh and bone" too!

0 Replies

I guess in real's world, hunger isn't barbaric.

0 Replies

Cicerone, we ought to be concerned about death from hunger and the killing of the unborn. To oppose killing unborn children does not mean we ignore other cause of preventable death. However, death that humans directly inflict (abortion) is very preventable.

Hmmm... why not take funding out of performing abortions and put it into preventing other causes of death? Win win, right?

0 Replies

30,000 x 365 = 10,950,000 >>> 400,000

RL, your math sucks.

Starving children out number your 400k by a factor of 27.375

Plus it would be easy to disqualify the majority of your 400k as being your subjective: "barbaric," "brutal," "butchered."

You are a rodeo clown. You stance is not medical, it's emotional, and you have zero control, further zero perogative; claim to such emotions.

0 Replies

His emotions run amuck, because he doesn't see anything but his prolife stance for the fetus while ignoring all the babies starving to death. He prefers to see more of them born and die from starvation in poverty.

He's a sociopath without any regards for the living.

0 Replies

When Does Life Begin?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know