I’m going to apologize here, for my mistake over at Dan’s.
I commented on a topic that is clearly a waste of time to comment on. My point wasn’t intended to open a can of worms, but to point out (as with the previous post) that any moral code based on not doing harm to others should probably be applied consistently to everyone.
Either it’s immoral to harm everyone, or harm is incapable of carrying the load of an entire system of morality.
41 comments:
I understand that the person who fights for unrestricted abortion up to birth, and infanticide post birth may claim they’re doing so for reasons of morality, but I’m suspicious of a moral code that encourages harm to the defenseless,
I guess that universal government run health care is consistent with getting the government out of a family’s medical decisions. That’s consistent.
And how many Democrats and liberals, specifically, have a moral code that encourages harm to the defenseless? Give me a number. Is it 1 million? 100? 10? Can you find even 10 Democrats who literally and specifically encourage harm to the defenseless? Please document it, if you can.
If you can't, admit it's a stupidly false claim.
Good question, good tactic. Asking me to support a claim I never made. It's an excellent try. However, since it's simply a straw man, I see no reason to waste time answering it.
Perhaps you should try to respond to what I really said, rather than your imaginary version of what I said.
For starters, can you quote or link to where I used the terms "Democrats" or "liberals" and made specific claims about what their moral code was?
Just to save us some time, I know you haven't answered questions in the last 5-10 threads you've commented on and I don't expect one here. It's a rhetorical question. If it weren't the answer would be zero.
"If you can't, admit it's a stupidly false claim."
There's no claim, so categorizing something that doesn't exist as false is simply idiotic.
I'll admit though, I suspect I could find 10 DFL officeholders who are encouraging the riots and destruction and the theft, or at least justifying it. But, since your claim is baseless, it's probably not worth that much effort.
1. “That is reparations,” Ariel Atkins, an organizer, told NBC Chicago. “Anything they wanted to take, they can take it because these businesses have insurance.”
Craig said... "I understand that the person who fights for unrestricted abortion up to birth, and infanticide post birth may claim they’re doing so for reasons of morality, but I’m suspicious of a moral code that encourages harm to the defenseless,"
Who is it who supports abortion legal? It is Democrats and liberals, Chile speaking. Thus, how is that not speaking about liberals and Democrats? That is the implication and you know it.
And so, given what you just said, you are saying you are suspicious of those people who support abortions, Democrats and liberals, and speaking of that group of people you said that you were suspicious of them holding a moral code that encourages harm to the defenseless. Is that literally not what you meant? Feel free to walk back your words and clarify that, "no, I do NOT believe that this is what liberals and Democrats do." Say that and show that I'm mistaken.
Or own your words and back down from your stupidly false claim. The ball is in your court.
And I'm sure you understand that there is a difference between an inference and a claim.
Now, to be accurate, I was specifically referring to people who a) support "unrestricted abortion up to birth, and infanticide post birth" and b) who advocate a moral code predicated on not harming innocents. Now where those to things live on the Venn diagram, I don't know, and I'm not speculating.
So, yes I am suspicious of ANYONE who asserts a moral code based on not harming innocents, and who advocates for "unrestricted abortion up to birth, and infanticide post birth". If one advocates for something that undermines the moral code one claims to follow, then I'm suspicious.
In addition to that, my saying that I'm suspicious isn't a "claim" about anything except my interpretations. If I made a "claim" about anything it's about a "moral code" allegedly founded on the precept of not harming the innocent and the inability of that moral code to accommodate actions that harm innocents.
Once again, the demand that I parrot your words back to you as if your trying to force me to bend to your will is somehow meritorious. I understand that it's difficult for your to let go of the conclusions that are drawn from your prejudices and preconceptions and to replace what you think I said with what I actually said.
Maybe the problem is you inferring something and assuming that it's a claim. Since you can't actually point to where I specifically said what you claim I said (FYI, support for abortion goes beyond that DFL and the DFL includes at least 20 million folks who don't support abortion) So, if one just looks at some facts, it gets harder to sustain your claims.
So those who support abortion are not advocating harming innocents? Is that what you're saying?
Also, no one is advocating post-birth abortions. There's a word for that. Order. It's already illegal. Perhaps you didn't know that?
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.statesman.com/news/20200227/fact-check-do-democrats-support-abortion-up-until-and-after-birth%3ftemplate=ampart
Do you understand that? If you don't understand others' positions, perhaps a little humility and seeking to understand them would be more appropriate than making false suggestions.
No, I'm saying that abortion is virtually the definition of harming the innocent?
"Also, no one is advocating post-birth abortions."
https://jme.bmj.com/content/39/5/261
"the authors argue that what we call ‘after-birth abortion’ (killing a newborn) should be permissible in all the cases where abortion is, including cases where the newborn is not disabled."
https://aclj.org/planned-parenthood/362-infants-born-alive-result-botched-abortions-died-decade
"Their lobbyist testified before a state legislature that if a baby was born alive as the result of a botched abortion, Planned Parenthood believed the decision whether to provide that baby struggling for life on the abortion clinic table lifesaving support, “should be between the patient and the health care provider.”"
https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/opinions/1999/09/11/a-professor-who-argues-for-infanticide/cce7dc81-3775-4ef6-bfea-74cd795fc43f/
"Also in that book, Singer and his colleague, Helga Kuhse, suggested that "a period of 28 days after birth might be allowed before an infant is accepted as having the same right to live as others."
In "Practical Ethics," second edition, Singer makes clear that the parents, together with their physicians, have the right to decide whether "the infant's life will be so miserable or so devoid of minimal satisfaction that it would be inhumane or futile to prolong life.""
https://www.firstthings.com/web-exclusives/2019/02/infanticide-becomes-justifiable
"If you are allowed to abort a fetus that has a severe genetic defect, microcephaly, spina bifida, or so on, then why aren’t you able to euthanize that same fetus just after it’s born?
I see no substantive difference that would make the former act moral and the latter immoral. After all, newborn babies aren’t aware of death, aren’t nearly as sentient as an older child or adult, and have no rational faculties to make judgments (and if there’s severe mental disability, would never develop such faculties)."
https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMp058026
So, when you say "no one", you clearly were unaware that the concept of post birth abortion has been with us since for decades.
Maybe, instead of trying to weasel around to hold up your misunderstandings, you should deal with what was written or do some research before you make claims you can't prove.
FYI, the Northam quote (which I'm not offering) is pretty clear that he believes that the parents and the Dr can end the life of a newborn baby. He's not clear on the mechanics, but I'm guessing that even you would agree that withholding food, and water from a newborn would be a terrible, agonizing way to die. What makes the statement Trump used "false" wasn't the underlying facts, it was the fact that Trump used hyperbole (possibly to the point of lying).
Hope you've got a good shovel.
Craig... "I'm saying that abortion is virtually the definition of harming the innocent?"
Bullshit. Prove it.
Put another way, for you personally, it may seem that way to you personally. And if that's how it feels to you personally, then you personally should not have an abortion.
But that's not really what you're saying, is it? No, you're saying that you personally have decided that you have the answer for everyone else and that you wish to implement that answer for everyone else.
That is, regardless of other people's opinions about a fetus and medical decisions, you want to decide what is right for everyone.
There's a word for that.
You’re the one who’s argued that human children are sinless until some unidentifiable point in their lives.
What have these particulars human children done that renders them guilty?
What have these human beings done to deserve having their lives ended?
How are those human beings not literally the “least of these”, not the most defenseless of the defenseless?
Yes, there is a word for acknowledging that a pre born human is a living organism that is unique and distinct from either of its parents. That word is science.
Let’s apply your argument to some other things, shall we?
If you don’t like slaves, don’t own any.
If you don’t believe that love has no age, don’t have sex with minors.
If you don’t like making an omelette with bald eagle eggs, then use other eggs.
If you don’t think slavery is right then don’t buy Nike or Apple products.
You’re literally arguing that parents should be able to end the life of their own children, for any reason they choose.
There’s a word for that also.
I see what you’ve done here, it’s a good try.
Are you really suggesting that dismemberment of a living human being that can feel pain isn’t harm?
Are you really suggesting that depression isn’t harm?
Are you really suggesting that a fetus is objectively and definitively fully human deserving of all the rights a born human is?
Prove it.
You can't. We can prove that the fetus is a living human fetus.
Whether or not is fully human due all the rights of born human is the question. You can't settle that question. You can offer your opinion. Other people have other opinions. You do not get to dictate to all of humanity what their opinion must be by force of law.
I see what you're doing here. Fascism.
You're not God. And you won't be our dictator.
Craig... "You’re literally arguing that parents should be able to end the life of their own children, for any reason they choose."
Of course, I literally am not. Factually as a point of reality in the real world, that is not at all what I said. Look at my words.
But you know all this. We've been through this all before.
I'm saying quite clearly that a living human fetus is literally a living human fetus. We do not know and you cannot prove that it is equivalent in every way to a human being who is already born.
That is the question.
That is the question that you cannot authoritatively and objectively answer for every one. You just can't.
If you could, you would. But you can't.
You just make claims and try to bully people into accepting your word as if you were a God. You ain't God and you will not be our dictator.
What about this are you failing to understand?
Look, different ages and stages of Life have different rights. A newborn does not get to choose what sort of medical treatment he or she will get. A 10 year old that does not get to choose to drive a car. And an unborn fetus does not get to choose whether it is born or not. That is a decision for parents to make, given all the data they have.
You do not get to throw a tantrum and insist that you get to decide for everybody else that a 10 year old gets to drive a car. You just don't. It's a different stage of life and you don't get to make that decision for everyone else.
Even more so, being a fetus is a greatly different stage of life. Being a 3-day old fetus is a greatly different stage of life than a 8 month old fetus.
You accept different rules for different stages of life at some level, but want to pretend that you have the authority to insist upon your rules at a vastly different stage of life.
You just don't have the authority to make that call. And you do not have a basis to say that those who disagree with you don't care about morality. That would be a God damned lie.
Two points:
1. Barak Obama also spoke in opposition to life saving measures for abortion survivors. Indeed, he voted against Born Alive Protection Acts on both the state and federal level.
2. To pretend there's something immoral about interfering with any private decision to murder another human being (here under the cover of doctor/patient privilege) is about as immoral as it gets, and fully counter to Christian teaching and the American ideal of a person's (an unborn child is a person) right to life.
To advocate for the "right" to abortion us to advocate for harm of a most heinous kind. Dan believes in doing harm.
No I’m not. Why don’t you prove that they aren’t entitled to even one simple basic right?
If you want to argue that agreeing with what science says, go right ahead,
I see what you’re doing here, diverting..
I am looking at your literal words, you’ve been quite clear that no one should be able to stop parents and their Dr from ending the life of their unborn human child.
I’ll address the rest tomorrow when I’m not on my phone.
I’ll point out that you’re going on the attack, instead of answering questions, you’re trying to reframe the discussion as if you have the status to simply make declarations.
I’ll give you a hint. If you’re going to hide from and ignore questions, fail to prove your claims, and not even attempt to do anything but declare me to be wrong, how about you stop expecting me to do what you won’t do.
Dan's argument is cheap rationalization. To pretend that there was always some question about the "personhood" of the unborn is absurd. One can go back to original Hypocratic Oath to see that abortion was abhorred by men of honor because of what it so clearly is...a human being. Then, to suggest that this child is not worthy of the same rights to life as fully formed adults requires proof by Dan, not by us. How else do we get here but to go through every phase of human development from the moment of conception onward. So yes, to argue that the unborn is NOT endowed by its Creator with the unalienable right to life demands proof from Dan, not from us. And to be crystal clear so that even a fake Christian can understand it, no one is suggesting the child is entitled to every liberty and privilege of a fully formed human being...because minor aged children aren't, either. But the right to life requires no formal training, no advanced degrees or specific age. The child just this instant born has the right to life, just like the child born yesterday or last week or last year. The child awaiting that milestone...birth...also has that right, passed down from its parents as are every physical trait it will possess. One has to be a "progressive" Christian to be so dishonest as to pretend proof of the value and preciousness of the unborn is required of any defender of their God-given lives.
In the meantime, since the party Dan supports defends one's "right" to murder one's child for any reason at any time up to, and shortly thereafter birth, Dan also does if we're to pretend he has any honesty, integrity and consistency. For Dan insists that to support the presidency of Donald Trump is to support and defend the form of sexual immorality in which he engaged so often. By that tortured logic, Dan is far more a child murderer than any Trump supporter is "rapey".
Craig... "Why don’t you prove that they aren’t entitled to even one simple basic right?"
How?
How do either of us objectively in the Thor tale of Lee proved is it a fetus is or is not deserving of right? What is your source going to be that will be authoritative? What would my source be?
That's just the point. It's an unprovable proposition.
"Whether or not is fully human due all the rights of born human is the question."
No, it's your question. Not the question.
Define "fully human" and explain why a human child possessing every single bit of DNA and genetic information it will even need is less than "fully human".
Since you continue to bring up this "all the rights" straw man, I'll correct you once again. We're only talking about ONE right at this point. You could argue that it's the three fundamental rights that our founders called "self evident", "Life, Liberty, Pursuit of happiness. The right to live underlying the other two. This attempt to evade this simple concept is an absurd diversion.
"I see what you're doing here. Fascism."
No, science,
"You're not God. And you won't be our dictator."
No desire to be either, but thanks for the continued straw men.
"I'm saying quite clearly that a living human fetus is literally a living human fetus. We do not know and you cannot prove that it is equivalent in every way to a human being who is already born."
I've never claimed that it was. Define your terms. At what point does a human being qualify for the right to live? Science can prove that a pre born human is the exact same human no matter which side of the birth canal that it resides on.
"That is the question."
It's a question, not the question. It's a question that begs clarification and definition of terms. It's a question designed to obfuscate, not illuminate. The fact that you won't provide an answer to the corollary question (When do you bestow rights on human beings?) just proves my point.
"That is the question that you cannot authoritatively and objectively answer for every one. You just can't."
Really, Ok. Then define "fully human" and explain when children are granted the right to life. If, as the founders claimed, the right to "life" is "inalienable", how do you "alienate" the "inalienable"?
I'll note that science, has pretty much authoritatively answered the question of when life begins. It's virtually beyond debate that an individual, unique, human being begins at conception. So, yes I'm agreeing with what science tells us. I'm consistent in suggesting that human rights are endowed by "our creator" and are inextricably linked with being a living human being. Unfortunately, you have no rational alternative.
"You just make claims and try to bully people into accepting your word as if you were a God. You ain't God and you will not be our dictator."
If you're going to accuse me of lying, and bullying, it's probably a good idea not to lie and bully while you do so. It really undercuts your moral indignation.
"What about this are you failing to understand?"
Absolutely nothing. I understand that you are arguing that parents (in consultation with their Dr, who sometimes has a financial interest in aborting the child), have the "right" to end the life of another human being. Further, you seem to be arguing that this ending of a life is completely without harm to anyone involved.
"Look, different ages and stages of Life have different rights."
That's true, and no one disputes this. What you haven't done is to demonstrate why ONE fundamental human right, can be denied to certain human beings, and when human beings get this one right conferred on them. If anything your insistence that human rights don't come with human beings and that some human beings can be denied these "inalienable" rights, is a much more dictatorial position.
"A newborn does not get to choose what sort of medical treatment he or she will get."
So, the parents can choose medical treatment that results in the death of the newborn?
"A 10 year old that does not get to choose to drive a car.
Driving isn't a right, idiot.
"And an unborn fetus does not get to choose whether it is born or not. That is a decision for parents to make, given all the data they have."
Do you realize how barbaric you sound? You literally just acknowledged that you are arguing for the "right" of parents to "choose" to end a human life.
"You do not get to throw a tantrum and insist that you get to decide for everybody else that a 10 year old gets to drive a car. You just don't. It's a different stage of life and you don't get to make that decision for everyone else."
No tantrum, except yours. Nor an I insisting anything. You, on the other hand are insisting that parents can end the life of their child for pretty much any reason, at any time up to birth.
You still haven't explained how and when a unique, individual, human being, finally gets their "inalienable" right to "life". You still haven't explained why you get to decide when to confer this "inalienable right", or when human beings get their "inalienable rights". Of course, you won't do so, but I'll keep pointing out your failure.
"Even more so, being a fetus is a greatly different stage of life. Being a 3-day old fetus is a greatly different stage of life than a 8 month old fetus."
So. You still haven't explained why it's ok for a third party to deny a unique, individual, innocent, human being it's "inalienable" right. Or, when this human being deserves protection from harm.
"You accept different rules for different stages of life at some level, but want to pretend that you have the authority to insist upon your rules at a vastly different stage of life."
No, I'm simply suggesting that "inalienable" human rights are "inalienable" and that they apply during all stages of life. You haven't explained how this premise is objectively false. I realize that it's an incredibly consistent position, and that consistency is something you struggle with. I see what you did there, you changed from "rights" (which are inalienable) to "rules" which are subjective and imposed.
"You just don't have the authority to make that call. And you do not have a basis to say that those who disagree with you don't care about morality. That would be a God damned lie."
Never claimed I had that authority, never said that those who disagree with me don't care about morality. So that would be Dan- 2 "God damned" lies, Craig- 0.
I'd point out the difference between what I really said and your "God damned" lies, but it's likely that you don't care, or aren't interested.
Craig... "Why don’t you prove that they aren’t entitled to even one simple basic right?"
"How?"
I don't know. If you are going to claim that human beings at a certain stage of development are to be denied fundamental, "inalienable" human rights, you should be able to prove that claim. (I know you won't explicitly make that claim because you generally aren't willing to take specific stands on controversial issues, but the reality is that you are claiming that human beings do not have "inalienable" rights are various stages of development. Further, you're too cowardly to define what stage of development these "inalienable" rights actually get conferred.)
"How do either of us objectively in the Thor tale of Lee proved is it a fetus is or is not deserving of right? What is your source going to be that will be authoritative? What would my source be?"
I have no authoritative sources regarding Norse mythology or Marvel comics. I'll suggest that asking additional questions when you've been dodging questions for weeks is not a good look. Nor does dodging questions, and refusing to define terms make you look reasonable.
"That's just the point. It's an unprovable proposition."
You're right that any proposition about Thor is unprovable.
Art,
You're jumping ahead. Dan isn't making the personhood argument. He's essentially arguing that "inalienable" human "rights", "endowed by our Creator" somehow don't align with the entire life span of a human being. He's essentially arguing that these "inalienable" rights aren't "endowed by our creator" and (even if they are) can be vitiated by parents who want to end the life of their child.
Don't give him credit for an argument he isn't making. Even if the personhood argument is a bad argument.
Craig... "I don't know. If you are going to claim that human beings at a certain stage of development are to be denied fundamental, "inalienable" human rights, you should be able to prove that claim."
What I'm saying is that neither you nor I KNOW authoritatively that a fetus is fully a human deserving of all rights of living human beings born into this world.
You don't know it. I don't know it. Neither of us can prove it authoritatively.
Thus, if they are NOT fully human entities the same as born humans, then there is no "right to life" which is a right afforded human beings. Not necessarily a human fetus.
IF YOU are going to argue that they are fully human and deserving of all the rights due a born human being, then you need to prove it, don't you?
That ball remains in your court. We won't bow to your demands to heed your word without any proof. You ain't god enough and you won't be our religious dictator.
"What I'm saying is that neither you nor I KNOW authoritatively that a fetus is fully a human deserving of all rights of living human beings born into this world."
You can't won't define "fully human", and you've chosen to misrepresent my position.
"You don't know it. I don't know it. Neither of us can prove it authoritatively."
I'll stick with scientists on this. At conception a new, unique, human life begins. From the time of conception nothing is added to the genetic/DNA/essence of this new unique human being. You can't define "fully human", you can't tell us when one becomes "fully human", why should anyone take this undefined, unexplained phenomenon for anything but obfuscation?
"Thus, if they are NOT fully human entities the same as born humans, then there is no "right to life" which is a right afforded human beings. Not necessarily a human fetus."
You just insisted that you can't prove your claim, yet you are extrapolating from your claim as if it's True. What is the difference between "fully human entities" and "human beings"? I suspect that your continued insertion of terms that sound slightly different, but don't necessarily mean anything specific is simply more obfuscation.
You are literally arguing that a "human fetus" isn't necessarily a "human being", please provide proof of this claim. A fetus is merely a developmental stage of a human being, nothing more or less. What other developmental stages would you remove "inalienable" human rights from"?
"IF YOU are going to argue that they are fully human and deserving of all the rights due a born human being, then you need to prove it, don't you?"
As you won't define what "fully human" means, and continually misrepresent what I am suggesting, why would I bother to "prove" your straw man. Of course, if you are going to argue that they are not "fully human" and do not deserve ANY of the "inalienable" human rights, then you need to prove it, don't you?
"That ball remains in your court. We won't bow to your demands to heed your word without any proof. You ain't god enough and you won't be our religious dictator."
No, it's not.
I've made no demands.
I've not suggested that I be dictator.
The ball, however, is on your court.
I've answered and responded to your comments with 4 extensive comments, multiple requests that you define your terms, multiple questions to allow you to clarify your position, and then some. All you've got is misrepresentation, straw men, and false claims.
No, the ball is bouncing aimlessly through your court.
Craig: "Dan, can you define "fully human" and can you tell us when "fully human" happens? Can you explain when "inalienable human rights" get conferred? Etc...
Dan: "That ball remains in your court. We won't bow to your demands to heed your word without any proof. You ain't god enough and you won't be our religious dictator."
That's what I call persuasive.
Craig: "Dan, can you define "fully human" and can you tell us when "fully human" happens? Can you explain when "inalienable human rights" get conferred? Etc...
Dan's ACTUAL response: "What I'm saying is that neither you nor I KNOW authoritatively that a fetus is fully a human deserving of all rights of living human beings born into this world."
And by the way, I was speaking with Science this morning and she said stop speaking for her. You don't understand her any more than you do me or the Bible or God.
fyi.
Craig: "As you won't define what "fully human" means..."
Dan: ""IF YOU are going to argue that they are fully human and deserving of all the rights due a born human being..."
Answered right there in the quote you selected from me.
I agree with Science.
So, you have absolutely zero idea what you're talking about when you refer to a "fully human being" nor any clue when "inalienable rights" actually kick in. That's great, you're simply prating about in ignorance.
I guess when the preponderance of the scientific evidence is so strongly against your hunches, the best option is to mock the science. Well played.
Are you insane???
Your quote is clearly "fully human" AND "deserving of all the rights...". I understand that the "and might be confusing for you. But maybe you could clarify.
Are you suggesting that "fully human" means when a human is "deserving of all the rights due a born human being..."?
If that is now your contention, then can you enumerate "all the rights due a born human being..."?
It appears as though the key word in that sentence is "born", as if passing through the birth canal in some way confers the "inalienable rights" "endowed by our Creator", is that your claim?
"I agree with Science."
Then you agree that a unique, distinct, human being is formed at conception. That's great.
Or are you claiming that science tells you when "inalienable rights" are conferred?
More questions for you to ignore.
Craig... "So, you have absolutely zero idea what you're talking about when you refer to a "fully human being" nor any clue when "inalienable rights" actually kick in. That's great, you're simply prating about in ignorance."
Last time I'll clarify. In THIS conversation, I'm using "fully human being" to mean having the rights we recognize that any BORN, living human being has. As opposed, for instance, to a clump of four day old cells that compose a human fetus. A clump of cells is just not the same as a full human and is not recognized as having all the rights of a born human.
In our nation, "inalienable rights" kick in at birth, when a human comes into being as a human. As opposed to the clump of cells in a four day old fetus.
From Wikipedia...
"Until approximately the mid-19th century, philosophical views on the fetus were influenced in part by Aristotelian concept of delayed hominization. According to it, human fetuses only gradually acquire their souls, and in the early stages of pregnancy the fetus is not fully human.
Relying on examinations of miscarried fetuses, Aristotle believed that male fetuses acquire their basic form at around day 40, and female ones at day 90.
For Pythagoreans, however, fetal life was co-equal in moral worth with adult human life from the moment of conception; similar views were held by Stoics.[5] Ancient Athenian law did not recognise fetal right to life before the ritual acknowledgement of the child."
In other words, there is no authoritative source to say when precisely "full human life with all the rights of a birthed human" begins. Some people guess "about" day 40 (for males) and day 90 (for females). Some people guess at that point when a brainwave is detected and others predict the day of birth, while others predict the day of conception. But none of these hunches is authoritatively provable.
Do you understand that?
Do you understand that neither SCIENCE NOR GOD has not spoken to you to tell you authoritatively when inalienable rights begin, if at all, for a fetus?
It just hasn't happened that either of these sources have spoken to you on this behalf. Where you claim to have knowledge from them, you are just speaking for yourself, not for God, not for Science.
Craig... "Are you suggesting that "fully human" means when a human is "deserving of all the rights due a born human being..."?"
In THIS conversation, yes, that's what I'm saying.
Craig... "If that is now your contention, then can you enumerate "all the rights due a born human being..."?"
The human rights we generally acknowledge in the US and other freedom loving nations: The right to live, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
Craig... ""I agree with Science."
Then you agree that a unique, distinct, human being is formed at conception."
Science has not told you that. You are delusional if you say so. A unique distinct human FETUS is begun at conception, as a clump of cells that SOME PEOPLE believe to have a right to life and OTHER PEOPLE disagree with. And neither group can prove it authoritatively and SCIENCE has not given you some secret answer.
More reality for you to ignore.
Gotcha.
"As opposed, for instance, to a clump of four day old cells that compose a human fetus."
1. The "clump of cells argument is outdated not taken seriously by anyone but you, apparently.
2. If you are going to ply semantic games by using the term fetus, at least use it correctly.
3. The term fetus refers to a developmental stage, not a separate entity.
4. Are you a bid Haekels fan?
"In our nation, "inalienable rights" kick in at birth, when a human comes into being as a human. As opposed to the clump of cells in a four day old fetus."
Really, where is that notion codified?
Are you suggesting that our "inalienable rights" are NOT "endowed by our creator" and conferred by some other entity?
Are you suggesting that human rights are limited to the US, or that human rights are different in other countries?
Where does science tell you about when "inalienable rights" kick in?
Explain how the baby is qualitatively different 5 minutes before birth as opposed to 5 minutes after birth, and why you would deny a 38.9 week old baby the right to life?
""full human life with all the rights of a birthed human""
Ahhhhhh, the goal post move. That "and" was a problem.
You realize that you've simply made up a definition that suits your argument, without demonstrating that the definition is actually True.
Earlier, you made a claim, and I demonstrated that it was false (post birth abortion).
If you insist, I can re post all the links you've ignored before. To demonstrate that there is plenty of scientific evidence that life begins at or near conception. But, I'm not going to go to the trouble for you to ignore.
"Do you understand that?"
Yes, I understand that Embryology and Biology have made significant strides since the "mid 19th century", and that by using magic they can actually see the unborn baby and monitor it's development.
Yes, I understand that if you move the definition for "The beginning of a new, unique, separate human being, with it's own genetic makeup and DNA" to "all the rights due a born human being", you attempt to define away any answer except the one you've pre committed to.
Your problem is that you are attempting to conflate "rights" (I suspect the inalienable, endowed by our Creator part is problematic) with life. You are attempting to argue that the conferral of rights signifies the beginning of life, without being able to prove that claim. You'll probably argue that your claim can't be proven as a way to avoid even having to try. But, you're defining life as a civil/legal status rather than a scientific/biological status.
The question then becomes, for people like Singer and the others I referenced, why birth? Why not 3 weeks? 3 months? 3 years? There's literally no biological, genetic, difference between a baby 1 hour before birth and 1 hour after birth. The only difference is location. Yet you'd deny that the 1 hour before birth baby was alive and worthy of "fully rights". You'd deny it's "fully human" status. You'd essentially render it a non person or sub human. You'll object to the terms, but if a pre born baby at 39 weeks isn't "fully human", then it's clearly less than human.
"In THIS conversation, yes, that's what I'm saying."
So, in other conversations, you'd say something else. It's as if you're trying to claim that "fully human" is a subjective status that depends on the conversation you're in and the country the baby is in. Don't try to assert anything objective or transcendent.
"A unique distinct human FETUS is begun at conception, as a clump of cells that SOME PEOPLE believe to have a right to life and OTHER PEOPLE disagree with. And neither group can prove it authoritatively and SCIENCE has not given you some secret answer."
1. When you misuse the term fetus (thank the lord you aren't getting condescending and using foetus), it really doesn't help your argument.
2. You continue to conflate science with civil law.
3. If it's not fully human, what is is?
4. What % human is it?
5. A "fetus" to use your incorrect term, is merely one stage in the continuum of human development, do you understand?
6. You do realize that the correspondence between the unique, individual human being that begins at conception, corresponds with the baby that you deign to confer rights on at birth?
7. "The right to live, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.", I understand that you'd deny those rights to babies if they don't fit your non definition definition of human.
Look, just admit that all you care about is location. In the womb, the little buggers are fair game. They have no rights and their parents have no responsibilities to them. Which, of course is a problem in the rare cases when the parents want to end the life of the little bugger, and the Dr screws up and the damn thing comes out alive. I'm guessing that you're on the "Let em starve/dehydrate" side of the argument.
Finally, you've jumped through hoops, played semantic games, made claims while denying that you are making claims, yet you still haven't explained why dismembering a human child at 20 weeks of gestation causes absolutely zero harm to anyone.
So, just to sum up, since you're not answering reasonable questions and therefore, I guess, are surrendering the points...
1. Craig can't objectively prove when a human life has human rights. Neither can Dan. No one can.
2. No one can objectively and authoritatively say that a four day old fetus, a four month old fetus or even a nine month old fetus has a "right to life" given to the fetus by God or by reason or by science.
3. Craig apparently THINKS in his head that Science says this, but it literally does not and I guess Craig can't understand that.
4. In spite of the reality that none of us can authoritatively and objectively prove if and when a fetus has a right to life, Craig keeps asking questions that can't be answered.
5. To be sure, they can't be answered by me OR by Craig.
6. Instead, Craig drops back to nonsense questions like "what % human is a fetus." I've already clarified that a HUMAN fetus is a HUMAN fetus. 100%. That's not the question and asking questions like that over and over do no good.
7. Instead, Craig keeps thinking that he has some "proof" or special knowledge that science or God have determined that a one minute old fetus has a right to life... and yet, Craig can't prove it and can't or won't even acknowledge that he can't prove it.
8. In spite of this paucity of proof, Craig would like to institute laws that support his religious hunches that a one day old fetus has a right to life.
9. And yet, as noted, Craig can't prove it. He just wants to try to bully and dodge his way into forcing others to accept his hunch as a fact.
10. T'ain't gonna happen. We don't need a Christian or Muslim or other dictator dictating to families their medical decisions. Not in a freedom loving nation.
For someone who's been actively hiding from questions for weeks, this isn't a good look. If you refuse to do what you demand of others, not only are you losing points for failure to answer questions, you're losing points for your double standard.
1. If you say so. I know you're an expert in journalism and other things, but had no idea that you were an expert in embryology as well. FYI, it appears that you're trying to prioritize a legal definition of life over a scientific. It also appears that you are claiming that "life" (as you define it) begins at birth, while also claiming that you have no clue.
2. That's quite a claim. I'd ask for proof, but it wouldn't be forthcoming, it never is.
3. Again, that's quite a claim for so little proof.
4. No, I keep asking, and you keep ignoring or finding excuses for not answering.
5. Again, provide your proof.
6. You're claim from the beginning is that the child is not "fully human", yet now you claim it's 100% human. Make up your mind.
7. Misusing the term fetus just makes you look like even more of an idiot than hiding from questions does.
8. Prove this claim, or retract it.
9. Prove or retract.
10. You're right, you answering questions of proving your claims, "ain't never going to happen".
It's been amusing to watch you fail to prove claims, hide from and make excuses for not answering questions, and hide behind ignorance. For all this time, just to advocate for parents ending their childrens lives for whatever reason they choose. Yet, you've either ignored or missed the entire point. I suspect ignored because you've dodged enough questions that lead to the point.
https://www.abort73.com/abortion/medical_testimony/
Hell Dan, the above even has more rabid pro abortion folks than you who are willing to admit that abortion kills a living human being.
How about you just admit that abortion ends a human life, and just argue that ending that life is beneficial and causes absolutely zero harm to anyone.
I just saw something in another context that bears on this discussion. The notion of humans being created in the "Imago Dei". That we as humans are created in the very image of God. Obviously if one denies this proposition, then this isn't going to be a big deal.
But, if one accepts that humans are in fact created in the very image of God, then when does that Imago Dei become reality?
Obviously, birth isn't a reasonable conclusion because God isn't/wasn't born.
Obviously, this Imago Dei isn't necessarily related to our physical bodies because God is spirit.
When would it be appropriate to end the innocent life of an image bearer of God?
Dan,
I must say that I'm impressed by the strength and courage you've shown is taking this firm stand. That you've chosen, "I don't know, therefore no one else knows." as your principled stand is quite impressive. Your further courageous leap from, "I don't know>" to, "Since I don't know, I'll adopt the position that my political affiliates propose.", is also quite stalwart. This courage is manifested in your adroit and tireless dodging of questions, and finally coming up with masterful excuses for your dodging. To bravely take a position that results in the ending of human life, while denying the existence of the lives being ended, fits so closely with the teachings of Jesus regarding how we should treat children, that I'm in awe of your fortitude.
Embrace grace. Bless the children. Treat others as you would like to be treated.
"1. Craig can't objectively prove when a human life has human rights. Neither can Dan. No one can."
The real problem with this statement is not whether or not such a thing can be proven, because one can't "prove" that ANY human life has rights. The problem is that a self-described "Christian" would even question it. To suggest that some have argued only born people have rights is about as subjective a position as there can be. And if ever there was the perfect case for erring on the side of life, what other case could there be than for acknowledging the preciousness and value of ALL human life...even that of the just conceived? Kinda puts the "one's conscience" concept in a different light.
Art,
Great point. The assumption that human rights can be objectively proven at any point is questionable at best. Further, as a christian it would seem that the more consistent position would be to err on the side of life being more valued rather than less valued seems to me more consistent with Christs' teachings. It puts ones conscience somewhere else, that's for sure.
Post a Comment