Texas Catholic Bishops Make It Clear: Abortion The Number One Election Issue

[lovemonkey]

What on earth are you talking about? 

Sorry, mistook you for a pro-life nut. My bad.

[liberalismo]

A play on words?  I don't see it that way.  It's not difficult to determine that a baby in the womb is actually a person.  And for those pro life people who believe life begins at conception, that the unborn baby should be afforded the same rights as a baby that comes through the womb (or abs if it's a c-section), and that abortion is murder, it's a huge issue.  

I really don't see a relationship between animal cruelty and abortion.  It's certainly possible for a person to care about an unborn child and abused animals.  Not adopting an animal doesn’t say anything about a person’s views on abortion.    

I adopted two cats from the Humane Society and I have lived to regret it.  But that's a subject for the pet board.    

I'm saying that the definition of "human life" is not concrete. EVEN if a fetus is a "human life", does this mean that it is wrong to abort it because it is a human life? This is a play on words. You define something in a term which people consider valuable and then defend it based on that definition.



Example:

Life is valuable.

Streptococcal pharyngitis are living organisms.

It's immoral to treat strep throat.



Human life is valuable.

Fetus' are human lives.

It's immoral to abort a fetus.

[Straw Man]

This "issue" is so simple

If you're against abortion then don't get one

problem solved

Too bad we can't find such a simple answer to the economic problems

[Dos Equis]

Sorry, mistook you for a pro-life nut. My bad.

No problem, but I don't believe people who are pro life are nuts. 

[Dos Equis]

I'm saying that the definition of "human life" is not concrete. EVEN if a fetus is a "human life", does this mean that it is wrong to abort it because it is a human life? This is a play on words. You define something in a term which people consider valuable and then defend it based on that definition.



Example:

Life is valuable.

Streptococcal pharyngitis are living organisms.

It's immoral to treat strep throat.



Human life is valuable.

Fetus' are human lives.

It's immoral to abort a fetus.

Do you have kids?  Ever gone through pregnancy with your wife?  It really does bring home the fact that an unborn baby is a baby IMO.  Seeing a life develop in the womb is an amazing thing. 

Not really a good comparison between babies and bacteria, viruses, etc.  It's apples and oranges.  I think a better comparison is a baby at 37 weeks in the womb versus a baby that is one hour old.  There really isn't any difference.  Still a completely helpless, dependent baby.  The complicating factor is the baby being in the mother's womb.  I doubt we ever see an acceptable political/legal solution to this.   

And why did you say there is a difference between a third trimester abortion and a first or second trimester abortion? 

[drkaje]

Someday, a person will come up with a reasonable explanation why what's going on in some chicks cooter is any of my business. They will also have to come up with an explanation as to why very late term abortions in the Middle East are OK with God.

[lovemonkey]

Do you have kids?  Ever gone through pregnancy with your wife?  It really does bring home the fact that an unborn baby is a baby IMO.  Seeing a life develop in the womb is an amazing thing. 

Not really a good comparison between babies and bacteria, viruses, etc.  It's apples and oranges.  I think a better comparison is a baby at 37 weeks in the womb versus a baby that is one hour old.  There really isn't any difference.  Still a completely helpless, dependent baby.  The complicating factor is the baby being in the mother's womb.  I doubt we ever see an acceptable political/legal solution to this.   

And why did you say there is a difference between a third trimester abortion and a first or second trimester abortion? 

By that logic you could almost stretch it to that jerking off kills millions of unborn babies. Or that a woman's period is murder because it wastes a egg for a potential baby.

I think you like the idea that a one hour old fetus is a baby because it is a POTENTIAL baby. Remember you still have to factor in miscarriage which happens by the odds of nature.
So it is a POTENTIAL baby because I can't really see the difference in a sperm cell/egg or a newly conceived organism with human dna consisting of a few cells. A sperm cell contains half the chromosomes for a baby!

You and billions of people have the ability to create potential babies right here, right now! Go impregnate a woman instead of jerking off! Think of all the potential babies you are killing if you're not!

[Eyeball Chambers]

As long as the fetus depends on its mothers bodily systems for life I think it should be her decision.

[Dos Equis]

By that logic you could almost stretch it to that jerking off kills millions of unborn babies. Or that a woman's period is murder because it wastes a egg for a potential baby.

I think you like the idea that a one hour old fetus is a baby because it is a POTENTIAL baby. Remember you still have to factor in miscarriage which happens by the odds of nature.
So it is a POTENTIAL baby because I can't really see the difference in a sperm cell/egg or a newly conceived organism with human dna consisting of a few cells. A sperm cell contains half the chromosomes for a baby!

You and billions of people have the ability to create potential babies right here, right now! Go impregnate a woman instead of jerking off! Think of all the potential babies you are killing if you're not!

Absurd.

[lovemonkey]

Absurd.

Awesome rebuttal I must say.

[tonymctones]

dude lovemonkey save your breath bro me and beach had this same arguement i almost the exact same way with different examples he doesnt get it. I like you beach i think your a good dude but your logic is flawed in this instance bro.

[Dos Equis]

Awesome rebuttal I must say.

More than it deserved.   

[Dos Equis]

dude lovemonkey save your breath bro me and beach had this same arguement i almost the exact same way with different examples he doesnt get it. I like you beach i think your a good dude but your logic is flawed in this instance bro.

You'll have to refresh my memory.  Link?  I don't remember.  If I did debate whether sperm was equivalent to a baby then I should smack myself.   

Also, just because someone disagrees with you doesn’t mean they don't "get it."  Sometimes that's true, sometimes they simply have a different opinion.  And much of what is discussed on the board is a matter of opinion.   

[tonymctones]

You'll have to refresh my memory.  Link?  I don't remember.  If I did debate whether sperm was equivalent to a baby then I should smack myself.   

Also, just because someone disagrees with you doesn’t mean they don't "get it."  Sometimes that's true, sometimes they simply have a different opinion.  And much of what is discussed on the board is a matter of opinion.   

i dont have a link and it would take to long to dig it up, we argued about abortion/infantcide and what the difference between killing a human and a plant where in which you said b/c we can think. but the problem with that is that animals can think so to kill an animal is the same logically as killing a human. Which i then said you would have to qualify the phrase "think" with a cognitive ability minimum which would justify not killing humans but allowing the killing of other animals but that also open the door to killing humans with mental retardation or even babies as they dont have the same cognitive abilities as adults and if they dont meet the cut off then they are fare game.

[lovemonkey]

You'll have to refresh my memory.  Link?  I don't remember.  If I did debate whether sperm was equivalent to a baby then I should smack myself.   

Also, just because someone disagrees with you doesn’t mean they don't "get it."  Sometimes that's true, sometimes they simply have a different opinion.  And much of what is discussed on the board is a matter of opinion.   

Epic misreading my arguments. Never said a sperm was a baby, in fact I argued for the very opposite. Read again what I wrote and we could have a insightful discussion.

Alright, sperm is not a baby. Is the one cell organism that is the result of sperm and egg mixing, a baby? Or would you venture to say that the later stages of development of that one cell organism is a baby when it has developed an consciousness and ability to live? The traits most people consider to be the foundation of a human?  Not just strings of DNA?

[Dos Equis]

i dont have a link and it would take to long to dig it up, we argued about abortion/infantcide and what the difference between killing a human and a plant where in which you said b/c we can think. but the problem with that is that animals can think so to kill an animal is the same logically as killing a human. Which i then said you would have to qualify the phrase "think" with a cognitive ability minimum which would justify not killing humans but allowing the killing of other animals but that also open the door to killing humans with mental retardation or even babies as they dont have the same cognitive abilities as adults and if they dont meet the cut off then they are fare game.

O.K.  I remember.  Different subject.  It was in the context of the guy who chairs an ethics department and believes in murdering the disabled, including babies.  I do remember spending far too much time discussing the distinction between murdering a baby and stepping on an acorn.  lol . . .  You don't see a logical distinction between the two.  I think there is a serious question about which one of us didn't get it.    Not going to rehash that one.    
  

[Dos Equis]

Epic misreading my arguments. Never said a sperm was a baby, in fact I argued for the very opposite. Read again what I wrote and we could have a insightful discussion.

Alright, sperm is not a baby. Is the one cell organism that is the result of sperm and egg mixing, a baby? Or would you venture to say that the later stages of development of that one cell organism is a baby when it has developed an consciousness and ability to live? The traits most people consider to be the foundation of a human?  Not just strings of DNA?

Quit making outlandish comments and we can have an insightful discussion.  Extreme overstatements are often used by people who aren't smart enough to have a rational discussion.  Not saying that applies to you.   

I believe life begins at conception.  I have heard others say life could begin when there is brain activity, which I think is at least a plausible argument.  But in my view, the logical starting point is when the sperm fertilizes the egg.  Most other attempts to determine when live begins are pretty arbitrary.   
 

[tonymctones]

O.K.  I remember.  Different subject.  It was in the context of the guy who chairs an ethics department and believes in murdering the disabled, including babies.  I do remember spending far too much time discussing the distinction between murdering a baby and stepping on an acorn.  lol . . .  You don't see a logical distinction between the two.  I think there is a serious question about which one of us didn't get it.    Not going to rehash that one.    
  

what would be the logical distinction?

[lovemonkey]

Quit making outlandish comments and we can have an insightful discussion.  Extreme overstatements are often used by people who aren't smart enough to have a rational discussion.  Not saying that applies to you.   

I believe life begins at conception.  I have heard others say life could begin when there is brain activity, which I think is at least a plausible argument.  But in my view, the logical starting point is when the sperm fertilizes the egg.  Most other attempts to determine when live begins are pretty arbitrary.   
 

Arguing with irony is the key here.

I dare to say that the idea of life at conception is a extreme overstatement. What exactly is it about that one cell organism that is anymore special than say, a cell in your body hair?
If you held that one cell organism in your hand, would it mean anything to you? Does it scream like a baby? Does it smile when played with?

No. It is again, the POTENTIAL it represents. The potential to become that wonderful child of yours.

If you can't separate between a one cell organism that exists at conception and a developed baby with feelings and ability to live you are surely passionate about bringing life to earth, but your logic is flawed.

And it is definitely not a strong enough logic to use trying to invade people's private business when dealing with abortions. Not saying that you are trying that, but many people with your argument are.

Therefore my ironic sperm argument. A sperm and an egg also represents potential in that sense. Not to mention the potential for making babies that basically all adult human beings have.

[tonymctones]

what would be the logical distinction?

let me move the discussion along a little bit

BB: b/c we are human and an acorn is a plant

Tony: that is an arbitratry distinction and makes no difference by that logic i could say its ok to kill dogs but not cats b/c one is a cat and one is a dog. There is no reasoning behind b/c we are human and an acorn is a plant.

BB: b/c humans can think

Tony: animals can think but you believe its wrong to kill certain animals dont you?

BB: of course not but humans think on a different level then animals

Tony: Ok so its cognitive ability?

BB: ya

Tony: well lets just say for shits sake that we will take the average cognitive ability of humans as the cut off point for congnitive ability b/c it affords us some reasoning for the number and isnt just an arbitrary number and still allows us to kill animals b/c they fall below this line but not ok to kill humans b/c they fall above the line but what about those humans that fall below the line? logically it would be ok to kill these ppl b/c by your standard the only difference between killing a human and a plant is the ability to think and the difference between killing a human and another animal is the amount of cognitive ability which these ppl fall below and thus making it ok to kill them.

Now explain the flawed logic there beach...lovemonkey please look over my logic for me and see if you agree or disagree please.

[lovemonkey]

let me move the discussion along a little bit

BB: b/c we are human and an acorn is a plant

Tony: that is an arbitratry distinction and makes no difference by that logic i could say its ok to kill dogs but not cats b/c one is a cat and one is a dog. There is no reasoning behind b/c we are human and an acorn is a plant.

BB: b/c humans can think

Tony: animals can think but you believe its wrong to kill certain animals dont you?

BB: of course but humans think on a different level then animals

Tony: Ok so its cognitive ability?

BB: ya

Tony: well lets just say for shits sake that we will take the average cognitive ability of humans as the cut off point for congnitive ability b/c it affords us some reasoning for the number and isnt just an arbitrary number and still allows us to kill animals b/c they fall below this line but not ok to kill humans b/c they fall above the line but what about those humans that fall below the line? logically it would be ok to kill these ppl b/c by your standard the only difference between killing a human and a plant is the ability to think and the difference between killing a human and another animal is the amount of cognitive ability which these ppl fall below and thus making it ok to kill them.

Now explain the flawed logic there beach...lovemonkey please look over my logic for me and see if you agree or disagree please.

I certainly agree with your logic, although it gives the impression of being a moral trap. But maybe it's the flawed logic of Bum that makes this trap unavoidable.

[tu_holmes]

By that logic you could almost stretch it to that jerking off kills millions of unborn babies. Or that a woman's period is murder because it wastes a egg for a potential baby.

I think you like the idea that a one hour old fetus is a baby because it is a POTENTIAL baby. Remember you still have to factor in miscarriage which happens by the odds of nature.
So it is a POTENTIAL baby because I can't really see the difference in a sperm cell/egg or a newly conceived organism with human dna consisting of a few cells. A sperm cell contains half the chromosomes for a baby!

You and billions of people have the ability to create potential babies right here, right now! Go impregnate a woman instead of jerking off! Think of all the potential babies you are killing if you're not!

This idea that sex is for only procreation is very much at the heart of this idea... Pro-Choice is an extension of that idea.

[tonymctones]

This idea that sex is for only procreation is very much at the heart of this idea... Pro-Choice is an extension of that idea.

interesting point holmes, are you saying though that pro lifers believe that sex is only for procreation and that pro choice believe that sex can just be for pleasure? or did i confuse that?

[Dos Equis]

what would be the logical distinction?

Here is the link to our prior discussion.  I really don't have anything to add.  http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?topic=238266.25

[tonymctones]

Here is the link to our prior discussion.  I really don't have anything to add.  http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?topic=238266.25

let me move the discussion along a little bit

BB: b/c we are human and an acorn is a plant

Tony: that is an arbitratry distinction and makes no difference by that logic i could say its ok to kill dogs but not cats b/c one is a cat and one is a dog. There is no reasoning behind b/c we are human and an acorn is a plant.

BB: b/c humans can think

Tony: animals can think but you believe its wrong to kill certain animals dont you?

BB: of course not but humans think on a different level then animals

Tony: Ok so its cognitive ability?

BB: ya

Tony: well lets just say for shits sake that we will take the average cognitive ability of humans as the cut off point for congnitive ability b/c it affords us some reasoning for the number and isnt just an arbitrary number and still allows us to kill animals b/c they fall below this line but not ok to kill humans b/c they fall above the line but what about those humans that fall below the line? logically it would be ok to kill these ppl b/c by your standard the only difference between killing a human and a plant is the ability to think and the difference between killing a human and another animal is the amount of cognitive ability which these ppl fall below and thus making it ok to kill them.

Now explain the flawed logic there beach...lovemonkey please look over my logic for me and see if you agree or disagree please.

me either that pretty much sums it up