It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
. . . Giubilini and Minerva push beyond that limit. They note that neural development continues after birth and that the newborn doesn’t yet meet their definition of a “person”—“an individual who is capable of attributing to her own existence some (at least) basic value such that being deprived of this existence represents a loss to her.” Accordingly, they reason, “The moral status of an infant is equivalent to that of a fetus, that is, neither can be considered a ‘person’ in a morally relevant sense.”
[I]n order for a harm to occur, it is necessary that someone is in the condition of experiencing that harm. If a potential person, like a fetus and a newborn, does not become an actual person, like you and us, then there is neither an actual nor a future person who can be harmed, which means that there is no harm at all. … In these cases, since non-persons have no moral rights to life, there are no reasons for banning after-birth abortions. … Indeed, however weak the interests of actual people can be, they will always trump the alleged interest of potential people to become actual ones, because this latter interest amounts to zero.
OccamsRazor04
Grimpachi
reply to post by FriedBabelBroccoli
Then remain consistent. You remind me of groups that preach one thing then turn around and advocate another not realizing they are the same thing.
Opps..I may have hit a nerve with that but it remains true.
Quite hilarious that you bash him, and you don't say a word to the person who STARTED the off-topic comments. Unless your post is a thinly disguised Christian Bash thread, OrphanApology is the one who should be yelling at. I guess you don't care if someone goes off-topic as long as it supports your views.
Then why can't the Christian haters in this thread point to ANY verses that support this book? They keep going off-topic, and the OP couldn't care less as long as it supports Christian hate it's fine. It's only when you attack the off-topic posts the OP gets mad. Hilarious.
First article I found
Candidate Who Advocates Parents Killing Rebellious Kids Was State Child Abuse Lawyer
October 11, 2012 in Religion, Violence, Youth
In the last little while a truly stunning number of Republican officials and candidates have gotten press for making stunningly horrible statements, from the Wisconsin state representative who said “some girls rape easy” to the Georgia congressman who called the big bang a lie “from the pit of hell” to the Arkansas legislator who called slavery “a blessing” to the other Arkansas legislator who pointedly noted that Jesus was okay with slavery before calling President Lincoln a marxist.
It’s been an interesting month. But I think this one takes the cake.
A few days ago it was revealed that Charlie Fuqua, a candidate for the Arkansas state House of Representatives, wrote in a recent e-book that the state should have the legal right to execute “rebellious” children, so long as the kids’ parents agree.
Grimpachi
reply to post by paleorchid13
Thank you for posting and you bring up a real good question.
How in the hell did those people qualify to adopt? I thought people had to jump through hoops and be squeaky clean to adopt. It is just insane. I though SS visited once a year as well to check up maybe I am wrong about that.
OccamsRazor04
reply to post by amazing
Then why can't the Christian haters in this thread point to ANY verses that support this book? They keep going off-topic, and the OP couldn't care less as long as it supports Christian hate it's fine. It's only when you attack the off-topic posts the OP gets mad. Hilarious.
And they wonder why there seems to be a war on Christianity. Do they really not know?
Grimpachi
OccamsRazor04
Grimpachi
reply to post by FriedBabelBroccoli
Then remain consistent. You remind me of groups that preach one thing then turn around and advocate another not realizing they are the same thing.
Opps..I may have hit a nerve with that but it remains true.
Quite hilarious that you bash him, and you don't say a word to the person who STARTED the off-topic comments. Unless your post is a thinly disguised Christian Bash thread, OrphanApology is the one who should be yelling at. I guess you don't care if someone goes off-topic as long as it supports your views.
You should know by now when I want to call out Christianity for how I see it I do there is no need to disguise it. Abortion shouldn't be an issue in this thread if it becomes one I will not hold back but I hope it can stay on topic.
The motivation for the book is on topic. You disagree that the bibles teachings influenced the authors that's fine it is worth talking about. The abortion issue can be fit in to this but it wouldn't be to the advantage to those of faith which I tried to explain nicely.
Then why can't the Christian haters in this thread point to ANY verses that support this book? They keep going off-topic, and the OP couldn't care less as long as it supports Christian hate it's fine. It's only when you attack the off-topic posts the OP gets mad. Hilarious.
It’s only hilarious because you thing that abortion is on topic. If you really want to go there.edit on 1-12-2013 by Grimpachi because: (no reason given)
amazing
OccamsRazor04
reply to post by amazing
Then why can't the Christian haters in this thread point to ANY verses that support this book? They keep going off-topic, and the OP couldn't care less as long as it supports Christian hate it's fine. It's only when you attack the off-topic posts the OP gets mad. Hilarious.
Well that's not really the point. The point is that Michael Pearls book is based on biblical teachings and principles and widely accepted and popular with conservative Christians. His books are based on biblical teachings. That's the link.