A great first step to ending Abortion!

Oneuli said:
Yes, fetuses do not have a right to life. That's long-established law, not only in the US but in pretty much every advanced nation.
Click to expand...

there is nothing advanced about killing your unborn children.......it is barbaric........if the unborn child has no right to life, neither do you.....
 
Oneuli said:
That's because one is much better than the other.
Click to expand...
It's a dishonest debate tactic...

Oneuli said:
Purposely taking away the life of a fetus is neither right nor wrong.
Click to expand...
So it's not even a moral question at all?

Oneuli said:
It's like taking away the life of a clump of fat cells during liposuction -- ideally you'd avoid it by not getting fat in the first place, but since an unthinking clump of cells have no right to life, it's not a great tragedy, either.
Click to expand...
An unborn child is an unthinking clump of cells?

Oneuli said:
Individual life is not, in itself, sanctified. We destroy it in the millions each and every time we wash our hands, for example. It is CONSCIOUS life that is special.
Click to expand...
An unborn child is not conscious?

Oneuli said:
Abstinence-focused education is less effective.
Click to expand...
It is the most effective way to not become pregnant. It has a 100% success rate (excluding the miracle of the baby Jesus).

Oneuli said:
Yes, and education that focuses on encouraging people to do that is less effective at preventing disease and unwanted pregnancy than education that focuses on prophylaxis.
Click to expand...
Abstinence leads to no disease and no unwanted pregnancies.

Oneuli said:
Teaching both an effective lesson and an ineffective lesson is, of course, better than only teaching the ineffective lesson. But it's also worse than spending the whole time on the effective lesson. It's akin to spending time in biology class teaching creationism. The more time you spend on it, the less time available for something worthwhile.
Click to expand...
Creationism has nothing to do with biology. Biology is science, while Creationism is religion. Of course, some religions masquerade themselves as science, such as Global Warming, the Big Bang Theory, and the Theory of Abiogenesis, for starters...

Oneuli said:
What makes you think that?
Click to expand...
It is a child. Children have the right to life.
 
gfm7175 said:
Yup... She seems to be carefully choosing words like "fetus" and "clump of cells" in an attempt to dehumanize the child to make it seem okay to terminate it's life. It's amazing that she thinks that a baby 8 months into the pregnancy cycle is a "clump of cells"...
Click to expand...

"fetus" is the stage of human development between "zygote" (five or six days) and embryo (8 weeks) it would be a rare situation for a fetus to be aborted, as most women would not be sure of pregnancy before 8 weeks.....
 
PostmodernProphet said:
"fetus" is the stage of human development between "zygote" (five or six days) and embryo (8 weeks) it would be a rare situation for a fetus to be aborted, as most women would not be sure of pregnancy before 8 weeks.....
Click to expand...

Do rape and incest victims have less an unborn in them?
 
Oneuli said:
That's a bit like saying that if you don't want to drown, don't go swimming. That would work, but there are better alternatives.
Click to expand...
No, there quite literally aren't. In this specific framework of swimming, if you do not swim, then you are definitely not going to drown. There is no better alternative to avoiding drowning than not swimming in the first place. Yet, if you DO decide to take the risk and swim, then there are ways to reduce that risk of drowning. The risk is always there, but it can be reduced by taking certain precautions. Same with your driving example from another comment. The only way to remain 100% safe is to not even drive in the first place. But if you DO decide to drive, there are precautions that one can take to reduce their risk of ending up in an accident.

Oneuli said:
And if you focus on not going swimming as the way to prevent drowning, you're just increasing the chances that when people ignore you and swim anyway, they won't be armed with the practical information that could keep them from drowning.
Click to expand...
Why not? They can be taught both ways. They can be taught of the risks that they are taking, and that it would be better if they waited until they were more equipped to take on the risks, but if they did take the risk anyway, that there are ways to reduce that risk.

You essentially, in this pregnancy discussion, want people to swim through rushing currents before they are even prepared to handle that big of a task... It would be much better for them to abstain from swimming through rushing currents until they are more adequately prepared for doing so. People ought to abstain from sex until they are prepared for it (and all the responsibilities which may arise from it).

Oneuli said:
It's true that superstition is common enough that it's probably hard-wired, to some extent... and not just in humans. Studies have shown that even pigeons behave religiously. BF Skinner showed that if you feed pigeons at random times, they'll start to recognize non-existent patterns and engage in meaningless prayer-like behavior to try to trigger the feedings. Fortunately, some humans are smart enough and open-minded enough to rise above the sin of faith.
Click to expand...
Actually, that is close-mindedness... and faith is not a sin. Faith is circular reasoning. A circular argument is otherwise known as an argument of faith. Circular reasoning is not a sin...
 
PostmodernProphet said:
and the evidence is conclusive that if you tell children its okay to kill their unborn children they will often do it......
Click to expand...

If you want to teach your children that particular religious taboo, that's fine. Similarly, if you want to teach them that picking up sticks on a Saturday is a sin, or that eating pork is an abomination, or eating during daytime in the month of Ramadan is an insult to Allah, or that it's wrong to wear a fabric that consists of mixed linen and wool.... have at it. I'm not here to stand between you and indoctrinating your kids in your superstitions. But if your concern were truly about preventing fetal deaths, that would manifest in an interest not just in punishing women who end unwanted pregnancies, but also in other options from the long list of ideas I provided for doing so. The fact none of the others engage you tells us what your real goal is, and it has nothing to do with the supposed sanctity of fetal life.
 
PostmodernProphet said:
there's no reason to charge women criminally.....all you have to do is hang the abortion providers.....
Click to expand...

Many of those women's health physicians are, themselves, women. You're talking about murdering someone for running afoul of your religious taboos. It's like trying to talk to a member of the Taliban.
 
Oneuli said:
Many of those women's health physicians are, themselves, women. You're talking about murdering someone for running afoul of your religious taboos. It's like trying to talk to a member of the Taliban.
Click to expand...

I see no reason why people who kill children should not get capital punishment.........to be fair, killing children sounds more like the Taliban.......its time to bring us back to civilization.......
 
Oneuli said:
The legal right of women to end unwanted pregnancies is something that nearly all advanced nations have in common. The barbaric nations, by comparison, tend to agree with you.
Click to expand...
you are a fucking idiot if you think killing your unborn children is advanced.......the day will come when abortionists will be treated like the slave owners of the 1800s........
 
gfm7175 said:
It's a dishonest debate tactic...
Click to expand...

It's a forthright debate tactic. It would be odd, indeed, if people felt they needed to hide the fact one thing was better than another in a debate, don't you think?

So it's not even a moral question at all?
Click to expand...

Correct.

An unborn child is an unthinking clump of cells?
Click to expand...

Fetuses are unthinking clump of cells.

An unborn child is not conscious?[/quotes]

Fetuses are not conscious.

It is the most effective way to not become pregnant. It has a 100% success rate (excluding the miracle of the baby Jesus).
Click to expand...

First, let's aside the various myths about virgin births (of which Jesus is a relatively late addition). No point telling each other fairy tales, when we have a practical matter at hand.

Anyway, we're back to that same old argument. It's like saying you can't drown if you never go near the water, or you can't get in a car accident if you refuse to get into a car, or the only way to avoid shooting yourself is never to touch a gun, etc. The problem isn't with the statements, which are true. It's in the value of the lesson. If the focus of your drown-proofing training is "don't go near the water," you're setting your students up to drown, because they will, in fact, go near the water, and when they do they won't be armed with the lessons you might have given them as to how to minimize risks while doing so.

Of course, some religions masquerade themselves as science, such as Global Warming, the Big Bang Theory, and the Theory of Abiogenesis, for starters...
Click to expand...

Global warming isn't a religion. Neither is the Big Bang theory, or the hypotheses around abiogenesis. They are testable science.

It is a child. Children have the right to life.
Click to expand...

It is a fetus. Fetuses have no right to life, either morally or under the law in most advanced nations (though, granted, in more primitive nations they sometimes are treated as having such a right).
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top