Yes, I heard there are a few species that even contain both male and female abilities,but they are not the same as the animal kingdom as the rest, nor are apples etc. A human, horse,cat, dogs etc. “Will develope” into that particu;ar species,but the word is develope, not starting out as an adult right away as soon as the egg is there. It is a process of several months and some like the elephant take even longer!
May I ask which part is nonsense to you?
I truly think Ray Comfort in the video has a valid point.
Hitler had the legal sanction of the German people to committ the holocaust. None of us would kill them or would think it’s ok. I’ll restate what he asked, “It’s not ok for me to kill those Jews, but it is for someone else to.” Is it not killed regardless of who is doing it?
In addition to the fact that this analogy is still disgusting and exploitive, it doesn’t in any way respond to the point Guinastasia was making.
“It,” being Jewish people during the Holocaust? If I might answer: Yes, many of them were certainly killed, and no, it wasn’t okay.
Can this be over now?
It does respond to their point. Guinastasia is saying it’s not ok for him/her to kill the baby, but it is for someone else.
Why does who kills it make it right or wrong?
No, she isn’t saying that. Not even a little bit.
She said she doesn’t like abortion, which is not the same thing as saying it’s wrong for her or for anyone else. A lot of people say they don’t like abortion but that they believe it’s more important for women to be able to make a choice. So your analogy (and Comfort’s) is irrelevant and has nothing to do with what she said. I figure Comfort made this comparison because he thinks abortion supporters are like Nazis, not because he thinks it’s a compelling argument. It isn’t.
There is a lot of shit I don’t like; I don’t argue it should be otherwise legal. That train of thought it a complete intellectual cop-out. It actually amuses me that people continue to use it, when it’s easily rebuffed.
I think you’re wrong. History will attest to the fact that certain segments of the population have been defined as “non-persons” in order to meet an end.
This has nothing to do with what I said. Is there a bug going around?
I’m talking about Ray Comfort’s purpose of the Nazi analogy and how you’re wrong about Ray Comfort thinking abortion supporters are/would be Nazi supporters.
It doesn’t really matter. He’s wrong in either case, it’s a sleazy argument, and lockmat doesn’t seem to have understood what Guinastasia was saying.
If History attests that fetuses represent some disenfranchised segment of the population, History will be wrong. And, unlike the Holocaust, there is no coherent “end” to which abortion generally aspires. This isn’t a popular movement with a guiding ideology. This isn’t the suppression of a particular group. There isn’t an abortion club where people congregate to plan abortions for some larger purpose.
Nobody brought the dog bowling.
(1) It does matter.
(2) Not liking the application of an argument does not make it invalid or, as you put it, “sleazy”.
(3) Guinastasia has no point. This whole “I don’t like it but…” line of reasoning is an intellectual cop-out, which can easily be applied to much anything else. For example:
“I don’t like rape, but I won’t stop anyone from raping another!”
“I don’t like murder, but I won’t stop anyone from murdering another!”
“I don’t like <enter behavior or action considered to be socially unacceptable>, but I won’t stop anyone from <engaging in the aforementioned socially unacceptable behavior> another!”
Of course, if I were to do so, than said people who want to use the “I don’t like it but…” argument as the end-all, be-all in regards to abortion will turn around and argue that the argument is rendered invalid in the latter instances because of the moral questionableness (I probably made that word up) of the aforementioned actions. The bottom line is that if abortion is morally wrong, then it should not be allowed. To say you don’t like it but it should be allowed regardless requires some amount of logical disconnect. As it stands, one doesn’t get to sidestep the issue with meaningless phrases which ignore the actual issue.
You might want to reread what I said.
Defining fetuses as non-persons —> legalized abortion.
You don’t have to tell me that.
I’m pretty sure you’re wrong here.
Did I ever say it was?
Did I ever say that?
Very convincing. In that case, I’m sold.
I was addressing the argument itself, not its “application.”
Based on your ridiculous examples, I think it’s evident you have no idea what this argument actually means. The point is that while a person dislikes a particular practice or doesn’t exercise a particular right, they think banning it would be worse or that it’s something people should have the right to do.
And is that the “end” you think pro-choicers are seeking? Nothing further than that? No plans for legalized abortion being the first step, world domination to follow?
Geez, what a let-down. I thought you were trying to equate pro-choice with Nazis or something, and then I find out pro-choicers aren’t even at the German Workers’ Party stage.
Let’s see…
There is no holy and just God. Nonsense.
This is utter nonsense. I mean, obviously, since your god is a fantasy, none of this makes sense, but even on it’s own, it’s pretty ridiculous.
No. Just… no. This makes no sense. I don’t have a debt, and how would this work anyway? Pure silliness.
Whatever. If it makes you happy, great. I’m not guilty, and I don’t need salvation. And even if I did, this method is weird and nonsensical.
I was raised in the church; I’ve heard it all before. I got older, and realized how foolish the whole thing is, and I’m a happier person for it. But thanks for your concern.
I don’t like <nosepickers> but I won’t stop anyone from <picking their nose>!
I don’t like <praying to Allah> but I won’t stop anyone from <praying to Allah>!
I don’t like <left handed people> but I won’t stop anyone from <writing with their left hand>!
I don’t like <farting in public> but I won’t stop anyone from <farting in public>!
Glad we agree.
It’s the same thing. Not sure what you’re trying to argue.
My examples are not and were not ridiculous. Did you not read a word of what I typed out? Let me try this again; whether or not one likes or dislikes a practice is irrelevant as to whether that practice should be allowed or disallowed. Whether or not an action is allowed or disallowed is based on the moral questionableness of said action. Rape, for example, is disallowed not because people dislike it, but because it’s considered an immoral act. If someone tried the “I don’t like rape but…” argument, it would be quickly shot down because it will be deemed that rape is an immoral act which should never be permitted.
It’s really quite simple. You do not get to ignore the 800 lb. gorilla in the room (the morality of abortion) because it suits you to do so, somehow trying to shift the debate to what you like/don’t like and what you won’t stop someone else from doing, and most certainly not when you start your argument with “I don’t like abortion but…”, which almost always invariably involves something which calls into question the morality of abortion in the first place.
Not even close. “Moral questionableness” is a terrible basis for forming law, i.e. deciding if an action is allowed or disallowed. Is it moral to produce fiction for adults? Is it moral to own guns? There are sizable chunks of the American population that would say “no” to one of those (very rarely, both), yet the First and Second Amendments are written to specifically put limits on what the government can allow or disallow in these cases.
I’ve little doubt that you and I and everyone on this board does or has done something someone else would find morally questionable, ranging from eating meat on Friday, or not going to church (or going to the “wrong” church), or serving in the military, or criticizing people who’ve served in the military, or watched a pornographic film or tried to get Huckleberry Finn out of a school library… That fact that we don’t let governments determine was it moral (and legislate accordingly) is that we cannot trust them to do so with any consistency and because freedom means being treated like an adult and not a child, with the ability to make decisions for oneself and not have them made on one’s behalf.
If you want to consider abortion to be immoral, I recognize it as your absolute right to do so, because to me it would be immoral to try to impose my moral standards on you. I will not seek to “disallow” you to disagree with me, to have laws passed making your opinions illegal, to have you arrested and imprisoned for expressing them, despite the lengthy history of people wanting to do exactly that, even in our relatively liberal western democracies.
Heck, even if you say “abortion should be banned”, that’s fine. It’s your opinion and I have no (and wish no) control over it, or wish no-one else to have control over it, but “Whether or not an action is allowed or disallowed is based on the moral questionableness of said action” is a blatant falsehood and I call you on it. That might be the legal standard in a nation with Sharia law, or one under an absolute monarch/dictator who metes out punishments on a whim based on his perception of justice, but it’s not the case in the United States and, one can hope, never will be.
Heck, the OP of this very thread believes (or at least claims to believe) that all humans are inherently sinful and immoral. Suppose that standard became the basis of law, with anything the OP thought immoral banned. Do you think it would only stop at abortion? Would there be punishments for unmarried people having sex? For not going to church? For not publicly accepting Jesus Christ as personal Lord and Savior? The result may well be a moral nation (for some very limited definition of “moral”), but it will not be a free one, and when humans inevitably fail to conform to the OP’s moral standard… what then? Harsher punishments? Banishments? Executions? I’m sure the OP don’t want to have to resort to such measures, but gosh-darn-it, people just aren’t getting the message!