by frankiespeakin 134 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
Abaddon, with all due respect to your intellectualizing, I am very glad that you were not my biological father or anywhere near my mother when she found out that she was pregnant with me, her fifth child, in a very unhappy marriage.
Flyin' High and very glad to be here now
FlyingHighNow
And that's one of the most ludicrous statments made by anyone in this entire thread.
Have you not paid the SLIGHTEST bit of attention to the fact I wholeheartedly believe it is a PERSONAL decison? That I wholeheartedly believe in a WOMAN'S CHOICE.
I find it insulting you take a cheap shot like that, which shows you've either not read the discussion, or not understood that central tenet (it being a personal decison).
If I didn't have some trust in you as an individual I'd also assume you were implying I would somehow malignly influence or perhaps even assault someone, as your comment 'anywhere near' following on Yeru's comments about assaults on pregnant woman could be construed in that fashion, but I don't you'd intentionally imply that.
Isn't it funny how the anti-choice lobby are always the ones without facts and with insults?
YeruWHY is abortion murder? Because it is the killing of an innocent human life...that's why. That you can't see that speaks volumes. what makes a fetus human? You mean aside from it's distinct DNA?Here you make an ad hominum attack against the moral character of people who are pro-choice. It's not ad hominum...the pro-abortion crowd are morally defunct...I make no bones about it. It's a valid part of the arguement. Hitler and Himmler could have used some of the rational stated here to justify how they handled the mentally disabled in Germany This, and other people wishing vengeful gods on the pro-choice lobby is what actually 'speaks volumes', if you want to get personal. I don't want a vengeful God to kill you, I want a tender loving god to convert your heart.And here you imply all 'human lives' are the same on account of their DNA. Had Himmler known of DNA...he would have used this arguement too. YOU decide the value of human life? If this claim is true, and you were in a fire and had a choice between saving ONE person, chosing between someone who was paralysed but mentally aware, and saving someone in a persistant vegatative state, you would save the first person This is a ridiculous arguement...unless we're talking about saving twins in a mother's womb. This invalidates you assertion that any entity with human DNA has equal rights. Again, this arguement could be used by Himmler...or any racist.
You also constantly make comparisons with things that are accepted as wrong (infantacide) and abortion. There was a time in this country when Abortion was also considered wrong...and a time in history when infanticide was considered morally acceptable...again this is an invalid arguement. It's like saying "well, we can kill people in a war to achieve our aims so what's wrong with killing someone behind a bank counter to achieve my aims?" If one accepts that death is neccesary sometimes in warfare, it does not mean that death is acceptable in other circumstances.
Aside from the fact that these babies..play...sleep...move, etc in the womb...Pet rats play, sleep and move. Pet Rats don't have Human DNA. Yet because they are furry, and let's face it, rats, you don't get in a lather saving their lives. Now, I'll gladly admit I would hate to have to abort a 16 week-term fetus. Although it's brain mass is similar to that of a rabbit, it LOOKS like a 5' long baby. I think many peoples distress over abortion is caused by the appearance of fetuses from the late first trimester onwards. They LOOK like tiny babies, even when they are the size of key-fobs. But mere appearance does not equal equality with a baby or even a late-term fetus.
I don't know...what makes them human?First, they are human; the discussion is broadly about whether a human fetus has the same rights as a human baby.Why Not? It is you who are implying the pro-choice lobby say they're not human, which is just a lie that makes your argument sound more dramatic. Anecdotally, the vast majority of the proabortion crowd refuse to acknowledge the babies are either human or alive until AFTER birth. For YOU, your conviction that they are equal to adult humans in rights is what makes them equal. And that's fine, you're entitled to your opinion. BUT you have consistantly failed to DEMONSTRATE why they are equal. Your convinced anyway, and just repeating that is not a real argument. They are equal becuase they are HUMAN and they are ALIVE...if those are NOT the criteria we use then we will soon be killing our children when they are born deformed or mentally incapacitated...and our elders when they become senile...that's not a slippery slope arguement...it's been demonstrated.
I think the debate is interesting in light of the new law being considered that would allow a person to be charged with a crime if they kill a "fetus" against the mother's will. An example...a woman was 1 week out from delivery...her husband decided he didn't want the baby...held her down, and punched her abdomen...then refused to call for help or allow her to...several days later she gave birth to the dead baby...he was charged with assault on the woman...not murder...and that's thanks to the BS nonsense from the "pro choice(read kill your baby whenever you want to) crowd. Our hero John Kerry was one of 38 to vote against this law because it defined a baby as life.Yeru, you seem very unaware of the duplicity of the right-wing religious lobby. They will try to get Creation taught in schools by calling it Intelligent Design. Ahhh, that slippery slope arguement again. I'm not part of the "religious right" yet I support this law. So, you don't think that the man I described is guilty of murder? They will campaign for laws that infringe upon the arena of fetal rights as a stepping stone for more anti-abortion legislation. According to you...a fetus has no rights.
Personally, I am in favour of someone causing the death of a fetus by means of assault having a harsher penalty than someone who just assaults an adult. Dude, it's murder a distinct human life was taken. Most cultures view assault upon a pregnant woman as worse than assault upon a woman; the law should take this into account. I don't believe this should be so because magically a 16-week term fetus has rights if it's mother is punched, but doesn't have rights if it's aborted. I believe this should be so as the fetus is for want of any other word the property of the woman carrying it, and for her not to see due punishment or compensation for damage to her property would be unfair.
Funnily enough, the Mosaic Law concerning two men injuring a woman in a struggle is exactly the same. The woman (and her contents) were chattal; she belonged to someone. Thus even an accidental injury or her (or her contents) was worthy of compensation or punishment. IF the Mosaic Law applied to deliberate abortion, then it would be in a unabiguos context outside of accidental injury.
However, the law is a Trojan Horse for the religous right.
I need to quit using the white-on-white font I think...
I'm all about the pro-choice way. It's just the way it is as far as I'm concerned.
Pet Rats don't have Human DNA.
I just coughed up something that does. What rights do you want to give it? Why is human DNA a criterion for determining rights?
Anecdotally, the vast majority of the proabortion crowd refuse to acknowledge the babies are either human or alive until AFTER birth.
By "proabortion", I presume you mean pro-choice. I don't know of anybody who holds the opinion that a foetus is not human or not alive. Specifically, who has made those claims?
They are equal becuase they are HUMAN and they are ALIVE
Why does that make them equal?
if those are NOT the criteria we use then we will soon be killing our children when they are born deformed or mentally incapacitated...and our elders when they become senile...that's not a slippery slope arguement...it's been demonstrated.
That's a textbook example of a slippery slope argument! What if the criteria we use are (for example) that any human being has a right to remove anything that's growing inside his/her body? Accepting this clearly does not lead to any of the scenarios you describe, thereby invalidating your argument.
I'm not part of the "religious right"
Ahem!
Yeru, I fear that arguing this point with you will be no more productive than arguing transubstantiation. You probably accept as an article of faith that a human has a soul from the moment of conception. You claim your reasons for your stance are that it is at this point that there is a genetically distinct entity with human DNA but you have not established why these criteria are the ones that should be accepted. Your reason for holding to these criteria seems to be simply that that is what your religious beliefs already tell you.
funkyderek and Abaddon: your posts are great , you've each got something substantial to say, not merely a black/white right/wrong knee jerk response which I can no longer stomach. Unfortunately, as evident on this thread:
Sad and pathetic. Would that there were truly a vengeful god to meet out justice for all.
In the end right will always be right.
I am very glad that you were not my biological father or anywhere near my mother
the pro-abortion crowd are morally defunct
that type of obnoxious moralising exists in many forms and in many religions, not just with the JWs. Rational, reasoned responses with evidence to back up those responses are not forthcoming from the anti-abortion crowd, only ad hominem attacks.
I was on the fence regarding this issue, but have now landed on the side of the pro-choicers, thanks to the anti-abortionists!
Pet Rats don't have Human DNA.I just coughed up something that does. What rights do you want to give it? Why is human DNA a criterion for determining rights? What you "coughed up" isn't alive...nor is it a distinct seperate human life...you're not being coy or cute, that is just ridiculous.Anecdotally, the vast majority of the proabortion crowd refuse to acknowledge the babies are either human or alive until AFTER birth.By "proabortion", I presume you mean pro-choice. No, I mean Pro Abortion...you're either for it or against it.I don't know of anybody who holds the opinion that a foetus is not human or not alive. Specifically, who has made those claims? John Kerry for one.
They are equal becuase they are HUMAN and they are ALIVEWhy does that make them equal? Why aren't they equal? When we begin deciding that some life isn't as valuable as other life...where does it end?
if those are NOT the criteria we use then we will soon be killing our children when they are born deformed or mentally incapacitated...and our elders when they become senile...that's not a slippery slope arguement...it's been demonstrated.That's a textbook example of a slippery slope argument! What if the criteria we use are (for example) that any human being has a right to remove anything that's growing inside his/her body? Accepting this clearly does not lead to any of the scenarios you describe, thereby invalidating your argument. It's not a "thing" in her body...it's a human life...you already agree with that concept. To you it's just not as valuable a human life as others. nor is a "slippery slope" arguement...ask the over 1000 involuntarily euthanized Danes in 1997...oh wait..you can't...they're dead.
I'm not part of the "religious right"Ahem!
Yeru, I fear that arguing this point with you will be no more productive than arguing transubstantiation. You probably accept as an article of faith that a human has a soul from the moment of conception. You claim your reasons for your stance are that it is at this point that there is a genetically distinct entity with human DNA but you have not established why these criteria are the ones that should be accepted. I have INDEED established the criteria...but it's not a criteria you accept...Your reason for holding to these criteria seems to be simply that that is what your religious beliefs already tell you. I don't recall making this arguement on religious grounds at all...there are atheists who are pro-life.
Isn't it funny how the anti-choice lobby are always the ones without facts and with insults?
Abaddon, first of all, I did not mean for my comment to be insulting to you or anyone else..I am trying to get you to think.Also, I am not an anti-choice person. If you look back at my comments you will see that I said I would not want to see the USA move backwards and outlaw abortion again. I feel the backroom abortionists would operate their butcher shops once more and many women/girls would be harmed. I feel like the solution to the problem of abortion is not easily solved. It never will be until all pregnancies happen under happy circumstances where the babies are wanted.
I said what I did to you because, after reading your reasoning to Yeru, I thought, and I would say this to anyone who is pro abortion, "I am glad that you were not my father/mother or in the position to influence my mother when she was pregnant with me." Why? Because perhaps you might have reasoned with her that abortion was a reasonable option in dealing with a fifth, worrisome pregnancy. And perhaps she might have listened. I am glad no one was able to influence her thinking towards ending that pregnancy and thus ending me or my chances to live my life.
Abaddon, I don't always agree with you, but I respect you and enjoy your posts. I feel badly that you read more into my comment than I meant for you to. I hope you understand what I was saying now. This had nothing to do with your comments about someone physically harming a mother.
Flyin'
Yeru, I virtually never think this of anyone as I firmly believe that education is the key, and intelligence is over-rated... but do you even understand this discussion?
It's not ad hominum...the pro-abortion crowd are morally defunct...
That by definiton is an ad hominum.
I make no bones about it.
Well, it takes a while for you to be really honest about what you think -and you still don;t admit your beliefs are religous as then you know your argument would be indefensable, but we get you near there in the end; it's refreshing to have the pretences about a woman having rights over her own body fall away so we can see what lies beneath.
It's a valid part of the arguement.
So you say. But as you demonstrate you don't understand the argument, what you think is a valid argument doesn't amount to dick.
As is my point Hitler and Himmler could have used some of the rational stated here to justify how they handled the mentally disabled in Germany.
That just shows you don't understand the arguments presented in favour of freedom of choice, as none of those arguments could be used (except by an idiot) to justify euthanising the mentally ill. I don't think you're an idiot.
I don't want a vengeful God to kill you, I want a tender loving god to convert your heart.
You didn't want a vengeful god to do that, but other anti-choicers DO. Some anti-choicers will even engage in terrorist activities to support their beliefs. And a tender loving god could sort out some dying babies in Africa FIRST; they're far more important than my heart.
You know how I say you don't understand the argument; look at this;
And here you imply all 'human lives' are the same on account of their DNA. Had Himmler known of DNA...he would have used this arguement too. YOU decide the value of human life?
Here you're saying had Himmler know of DNA he would have used this to argue that all humans lives are the same. I know you don't mean that. Try reading what yopu write - AND what other people write. Oh, and it seems YOU are just as guilty of deciding the value of human life.
This is a ridiculous arguement...unless we're talking about saving twins in a mother's womb.
No Yeru; you argue all human lives are equally valuable; I show that your argument is false.
Again, this arguement could be used by Himmler...or any racist.
How can an argument based on a massive difference in self-awareness be twisted to promote racism? Unless it's by a mud-slinging anti-choicer who's showing their true colours; if you can beat them, lie about them. How Christian.
There was a time in this country when Abortion was also considered wrong...and a time in history when infanticide was considered morally acceptable...again this is an invalid arguement.
Yeru, infanticide involves the destruction of a self-aware being. That's why it's illegal and why people accept it is wrong. Abortion (at least the early term abortions I have been consistantly refering to) don't involve the destruction of a self-aware being.
Pet Rats don't have Human DNA.
And you're still saying that if it has human DNA it's life is equal in value to anything else with human DNA; you can carry on saying it, it doesn't make it true.
First, they are human; the discussion is broadly about whether a human fetus has the same rights as a human baby.Why Not?
If you'd bothered either reading what you wrote, or reading what I wrote, you'd of made a sentence that made sense.
Anecdotally, the vast majority of the proabortion crowd refuse to acknowledge the babies are either human or alive until AFTER birth.
What you mean is you don't have the evidence to support your claim... just another instance (and I can quote 'em if you like) where you magically have 'anecdotal evidence' to back-up a bad argument. Lying is bad Yeru, ignorance ain't much worth more; are you ignorant of the facts or are you lying? As a matter of fact, most people who are pro-choice are in favour of a maximum term being set for most abortions, but when have facts got in the way of slinging mud in an attempt to win an argument?
You're so funny;
Ahhh, that slippery slope arguement again. I'm not part of the "religious right" yet I support this law.
Firstly, you show why you constantly use slippery slope arguments yourself; I suggest you actually learn what one is, as that wasn't one. Secondly, you're known for your religion and your right-wing beliefs. Your agenda is motivated by many of your religious beliefs. That makes you part of the religious right, even if other parts of the religious right would look down on you as a papist.
They will campaign for laws that infringe upon the arena of fetal rights as a stepping stone for more anti-abortion legislation.According to you...a fetus has no rights.
'Impinge upon the area of fetal rights' is firstly not an assertion that they have rights, but a statement that certain moves by the anti-choicers are pertinant to the discussion of whether fetuses have rights. Do you have problem with the sentencs, or is it you're just skip-reading and making yourself look sily as a result? Your reading comprehension isn;t normally bad, but you suck in this post.
Secondly, I think fetuses have rights at a certain point, but these are subordiante to preserving the mother's life unless she wishes (in the vanishingly few cases where there is a choice of baby or mother) otherwise.
Dude, it's murder a distinct human life was taken.
Yes, we know you think that. You keep on saying it. It repetiton was rightness you would be the most right man on the board. Add 'wing' in there and we might be closer to the truth.
AND, no talk about taking any action that would require effort on your part to reduce abortions. Which makes my earlier point nicely.
FlyingHIghNow:
No worries, I understand where you came from with that comment now... I did wonder about the about-face! Having been there and supported one girl through her decisons (which I would of done even if they'd been contrary to mine), I am perhaps a little sensitive - sorry.
