Announcement

**Kidlicious** · October 6, 2008, 21:55

We instinctively know what a person is. That's why it's so much harder to kill someone than it is to abort a fetus. Using religion and science to change our concept of personhood is not natural.

**Ben Kenobi** · October 6, 2008, 22:00

That's why it's so much harder to kill someone than it is to abort a fetus.

So if fetuses could fight back, it would be wrong to kill them?

**Kidlicious** · October 6, 2008, 22:02

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi

So if fetuses could fight back, it would be wrong to kill them?

No that has nothing to do with it. Try to kill a dog and it will bite you. That doesn't mean it's a person.

**Ben Kenobi** · October 6, 2008, 22:07

So you are saying that it's ok to kill a person if you don't feel revolted in doing so?

**Patroklos** · October 6, 2008, 22:15

So, in other words, for a woman to get an abortion, all she'd have to do is attempt suicide. She'll get an abortion either way; it's just on how you determine whether the operation success, there: did the patient die? Or did she live?

You keep saying this but there is no data to prove it. SOME women will go for an illegal abortion, but most will probably just deliver and give the children up.

The "value" of the human life at the time of the abortion is irrelevant because we consider all human equal under the law. We don't consider doctors better people than janitors.

If you think the fetus isn't human fine, at least you are logically consistant, but it is becoming increasingly ridiculous to deny that the fetus becomes a human being by all standards we apply in other situations sometime in the second trimester.

So it is 'wages of sin', only not in those words.

If it is "wage of sin" then I prefer the women pay it with a temporary inconvienience instead of an uninvolved bystander paying with their life.

People should just be able to have sex without agreeing to give birth so long as they take reasonable precautions. Why? Because people are happier this way.

Under that reasoning, we should be able to kill all sorts of people.

I doubt that you truly believe that. You just believe what the Bible says, but if it ever came down to choosing between 2 human beings and a pregnant human being you would choose the 2 human beings without even a hesitation.

You realize regardless of how you choose it is meanigless in terms of what you think you are proving, correct?

If you have to use science to tell if someone is a person or not then you are expanding the concept or personhood.

Your complete inability to be logically consistant is why you and those like you are such a detriment to the pro-choice cause. There are perfectly consistent and logical ways to argue for abortion rights, you have yet to mention one.

That's why it's so much harder to kill someone than it is to abort a fetus.

Your rationalization for the killing of a fetus, since you have disgarded science, is no different than the one used by the Tutsies so they would not feeling bad about killing Hutus, or Sunnis Shia. Congratulations.

**Kidlicious** · October 6, 2008, 22:18

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
So you are saying that it's ok to kill a person if you don't feel revolted in doing so?

Obviously. If you aren't revolted how can you say that you think it's wrong. Of course, society will be disgusted just as if they were disgusted after doing it themselves.

**Kidlicious** · October 6, 2008, 22:26

Originally posted by Patroklos
Your complete inability to be logically consistant is why you and those like you are such a detriment to the pro-choice cause. There are perfectly consistent and logical ways to argue for abortion rights, you have yet to mention one.

Since when do you need logic to believe in right from wrong. Is it to change your mind? What motivation would you have for that?

Your rationalization for the killing of a fetus, since you have disgarded science, is not different than Tutsies not feeling bad about killing Hutus, or Sunnis Shia. Congratulations.

Ah, they have to stuff their emotions though. They have to convince themselves that the other tribe that they are killing are not persons. No one has to do that when they have an abortion. They already instintually know that a fetus is not a person.

**Patroklos** · October 6, 2008, 22:29

Since when do you need logic to believe in right from wrong. Is it to change your mind? What motivation would you have for that?

I want you to look back at every time you have critisized anthing involving religion and realize what a complete hypocrite the above statement makes you.

Ah, they have to stuff their emotions though. They have to convince themselves that the other tribe that they are killing are not persons. No one has to do that when they have an abortion. They already instintually know that a fetus is not a person.

I want you to read your comment quoted above again, think about it for a minute, and then tell us what is wrong with it.

It is instantaneously obvious to anyone else reading it, I am just curious how honest you are willing to be with yourself.

**Jon Miller** · October 6, 2008, 22:30

Originally posted by Kidicious
We instinctively know what a person is. That's why it's so much harder to kill someone than it is to abort a fetus. Using religion and science to change our concept of personhood is not natural.

There were times when blacks weren't considered human.

JM

**Kidlicious** · October 6, 2008, 22:36

Originally posted by Jon Miller

There were times when blacks weren't considered human.

JM

And some people could kill them easily, but probably not most people. Most people can not kill easily, and if they do it causes themselves psychological damage.

**Kidlicious** · October 6, 2008, 22:36

Patty, I don't understand your posts.

**Ben Kenobi** · October 6, 2008, 22:45

Obviously. If you aren't revolted how can you say that you think it's wrong. Of course, society will be disgusted just as if they were disgusted after doing it themselves.

Feelings are irrelevant to personhood. A person doesn't stop becoming one just because they are unwanted.

**Patroklos** · October 6, 2008, 22:50

Patty, I don't understand your posts.

If I may quote myself then...

I want you to look back at every time you have critisized anthing involving religion and realize what a complete hypocrite the above statement makes you.

You often dogpile in various anti religion feeding frenzies about how stupid religion is when it directly contridicts observed reality or scientific fact.

Here you are telling us that the scientific standards Jon speaks of that we use to determine what is human don't apply because in this case, for no logical reason, you gut tells you different.

The fetus becomes a child a human in the womb at some point using every standard we use in every other instance when it is necessary to determine what is human scientifically. If you want to be logically consistant then you need to extend all the rights evern human gets at that point. Unless you want to be logically consistant by disregarding those standards all together. I am sure a lot of people with family on lfe support would object.

I want you to read your comment quoted above again, think about it for a minute, and then tell us what is wrong with it.

It is instantaneously obvious to anyone else reading it, I am just curious how honest you are willing to be with yourself.

Your comment was absurd on its face. Not only did you have to be convinced in the same manner, but you are convinced. You train of though is no different than any person who dehumanizes someone at any stage of life. What is disturbing (and is with an increasing nubmer of pro-choice people I meet) is the lengths you will go to white wash that fact.

If you think killing humans for minimal convienience is okay say so, I will disagree with you but at least you would be consistant.

If you think the scientific standards we are using don't apply and thus you are not killing humans say so, but have the balls to be logically consistant and disregard thos standards wholesale. If you don't your rationalizations becomes bald and pathetic, actually down right monsterous.

**SlowwHand** · October 6, 2008, 22:54

Pat, Ben, you're pissing into the wind. You're arguing morals with people who have none. It's a losing proposition.

**Kidlicious** · October 6, 2008, 22:55

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi

Feelings are irrelevant to personhood. A person doesn't stop becoming one just because they are unwanted.

And I never said that. I want Beyonce, but that's not what makes her a person.

Announcement

Abortion?

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment