Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

A valid political point - How are liberals pro-abortion but anti-torture?

page: 12
8
<< 9  10  11   >>

log in

join

posted on May, 13 2009 @ 11:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by justsomeboreddude
reply to post by TheColdDragon
I disagree. It does not weaken it. I know that a zygote cant live without support. What I am saying is that if you give a human zygote support it will become a human being, barring any complications. So therefore it is a human life.


Correction: If you give a zygote support, it has a non-zero probability of being carried to term. The likelihood of becoming a human being is definitionally tied to what a human being is considered, and there is no presumption that the possibility of it living to full term somehow lends it qualities it would not otherwise have.

When considering and debating with human secularists or those of a scientific bent and disbelieving nature, you cannot lend a quality that does not exist in the present to an entity because it may exist in the future.

Water has a freezing point. All water can become ice. This does not mean that all water is ice because of what it can be. The state at which it resides is the state at which it is referred to.

Thusly, from a logos argument, you cannot impart a future quality to a present element; It is a plea to emotion or morality.


You are entitled to whatever view you want. To me, it just seems that pro-abortionists must take that view, because if you didnt then it would impossible to see abortion as anything less than a mother having her own child murdered.


My interests and wants are not relevant to the topic, and present/previous/future comments are not necessary indicators of my disposition upon a subject.

You are again conflating your own worldview with the worldview of others. Whether you view it as murder does not indicate whether others view it as murder, and you should not assume that they do.

You are inferring a hypocrisy that is entirely based upon your own worldview; others see no hypocrisy because their definitions differ from your own.

This makes you totally correct. Your absolute correctness is just limited within your head.




posted on May, 13 2009 @ 11:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by ProfEmeritus
That seems pretty evident to be murder, regardless of whether you accept the unborn as children.


It occurs to me that I must address this point of fact; Definitionally, if it is not considered a child or human life, it could not be considered Murder.

So thusly, it cannot be evident that something is murder if the situation does not fit the meaning of the word.

As is usual, it comes down to what is defined.



posted on May, 14 2009 @ 05:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by mostlyspoons
THE TAKING OF HUMAN LIFE IS MURDER REGARDLESS OF AGE.

So you're all saying basically that liberal people should have the choice of wheither or not they want to end their child's life, rather than a conservative government dictating that the child should have a chance at life?

THE TAKING OF HUMAN LIFE IS MURDER REGARDLESS OF AGE.

Abortion should only be an option when it is proven that the pregnancy is a product of rape, or if the mother will have health complications as a result.

THE TAKING OF HUMAN LIFE IS MURDER REGARDLESS OF AGE.

Do you accept that?


Wait a second....according to you it's murder no matter what right?
So your own statement is contradictory to your values.
You say it's murder but then you say it's ok to murder under your certain circumstances. So you've decided that murder "regardless of age" is ok.

Might I suggest that before you get on your soapbox and attempt to throw your morality in our direction, you might want to find out what your own morality is.



posted on May, 14 2009 @ 05:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by mostlyspoons
reply to post by TheColdDragon
 


Wow, you are so cold-hearted. Or just really misguided. I pity you.

You are destroying the potential for human life, regardless of how science defends it by warping reason. And that is something a moral person can only do in a sick world.


Assigning emotional value is quite acceptable when dealing with HUMAN LIFE. Shame on you.


So now you're reducing it to POTENTIAL human life. That's interesting so under your own statement, many women are committing murder once a month as potential life is discarded. Not to mention the fact that all the sperm that is lost through "nefarious" means is also an act of murder since it carries the potential for life.



posted on May, 14 2009 @ 06:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by jfj123
So now you're reducing it to POTENTIAL human life. That's interesting so under your own statement, many women are committing murder once a month as potential life is discarded. Not to mention the fact that all the sperm that is lost through "nefarious" means is also an act of murder since it carries the potential for life.


Haha good point. I guess that makes me a mass murderer



posted on May, 14 2009 @ 06:31 AM
link   
I'll just be answering the initial question.

I think the main difference they make between abortion & torture is:

Depending on the stage of development of the baby, it might not be fully aware of what is happening (not experience pain at all, or at least not in our eyes) Have you ever seen one of those abortion clips? It sometimes looks like a small clump of something weird, completely immobile, and unresponsive.

That and a child in a woman's womb might by some be considered ''her property'', in other words, it's her decision on what to do with it.

Why does almost noone care about snapping a twig or about plucking some flowers? They do have some life in them you know.

Because of the lack of emotional response, now if we had mandragora roots everywhere......

[edit on 14/5/09 by -0mega-]



posted on May, 14 2009 @ 07:43 AM
link   
hilarious thread..

I am pro abortion and pro torture.. I don't know what that makes me. An evil conservative or a evil liberal, I don't know.

Makes me me I suppose.

But a valid question you bring up!



posted on May, 16 2009 @ 02:02 PM
link   
reply to post by justsomeboreddude
 


To me, they seem to coincide. They only say a fetus is alive, what is it the 22nd week or something like that? At that point they say you cannot harm a human life. Thus, once you are considered alive, another person has not right to harm you. As such, pro-abortion - anti-torture. The better question is how are republicans anti-abortion but pro-torture. That's like saying We respect all forms of human life, but not enough to make you think your drowning.



posted on May, 31 2009 @ 12:21 PM
link   
reply to post by jfj123
 


Having a period does not constitute murder. It is an act of nature. That would be the same as saying someone struck by lightning was murdered by a thunderstorm or that a woman having a miscarriage murdered her baby.



posted on May, 31 2009 @ 12:32 PM
link   
So Basically your asking why your preconceived notion of lumping people into groups doesn’t conform to your preconceived notion of what they think. I would say the fault is yours for grouping. Shallow..



posted on Jul, 23 2009 @ 08:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by -0mega-
Why does almost noone care about snapping a twig or about plucking some flowers? They do have some life in them you know.

Because of the lack of emotional response, now if we had mandragora roots everywhere......
[edit on 14/5/09 by -0mega-]


It has less to do with emotional response and more to do with a belief in an ephemeral dignity or essence possessed exclusively of human life.

Meaning, naturally, that in the supernaturalist argument that there is an ineffable "Something" which a fertilized human embryo possesses that all other life lacks.

This argument, naturally, falls flat with the atheist or secular humanist... as they tend to rely little upon supernaturalist juxtopositions of indefinable qualia scaffolded atop the physicality of existence.

The whole argument is, essentially, a time waster. The supernaturalists will not recognize that naturalists define the world differently, and shall continue to insist that all people use the same definitions... without a supportive basis upon anything but belief and inference.

[edit on 23-7-2009 by TheColdDragon]






top topics



 
8
<< 9  10  11   >>

log in

join