• Please read the Announcement concerning missing posts from 10/8/25-10/15/25.
  • This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

A Bit of Not-So-Common Sense

I must preface my comment with, I always enjoy reading Monk-eye's posts, even the ones i do not understand

but does anyone else find it humorous that he dismisses other posts because they are filled with hubris, when alot of his posts are also riddled with hubris, or way beyond my understanding
I atleast can admit that
 
What I don't get is how a woman can have an abortion because it's "her body" but the baby has its own DNA from the moment of conception. That means that from the moment of conception a baby is a seperate human being totally dependant on the mother to protect it.
Just because something has DNA does not mean it's human I believe that we should draw the line when the baby acquires major brain functions, because i believe that is what makes us human. If you want to sit here and tell me that anything with DNA is human, that is a debate i am happy to have.

My third point, many pro-deathers (what I choose to call them because they take away the child's choice)

Something without major brain functions does not have a choice, because it cannot think.
 
Right Is The Opposite Of Left | Correct Is The Opposite Of Incorrect

"Right Is The Opposite Of Left | Correct Is The Opposite Of Incorrect"
Your example regards a life, not the right to life.
The right is permanent without exception, and the fact that one can commit a crime by violating this right only shows that one can be a criminal, not that the right magically disappears.
Institutional laws that detail punishments, assuming they can be implemented, do not prohibit behavior, yet without the consequences of reprisal there is said to be no justice for the law.
One may argue semantically that an institutional law exists yet it is unenforced; however, naturalism would not conjecture that natural laws, based on physical laws, remain unenforced.

Are you versed in perspectivism?
Perspectivism emphatically rejects objective truths, stipulating that all perceptions of events are truth relative as subjective realisms.
Your reference to a "right to life" specifically relates "right" and "wrong" which is an expression of personal belief that you are compelled to survive, namely through procreation; yet, that opinion has nothing to do with an objective truth for an inalieable entitlement based on natural rights and natural law.

"To be or not to be? What difference does it make?"
 
Last edited:
Just because something has DNA does not mean it's human I believe that we should draw the line when the baby acquires major brain functions, because i believe that is what makes us human. If you want to sit here and tell me that anything with DNA is human, that is a debate i am happy to have.

You are misrepresenting your opponent’s argument by deliberately over generalizing the issue of dna. You opponent made no claim that something is human "simply because it has dna", so please don't claim that they did.

Your spleen has human dna and your spleen is not 'a human'.

"Organism" = "a living being".
Human DNA = "human".
"Organism" + Human DNA = "A Human Being".

Something without major brain functions does not have a choice, because it cannot think.

The 'brain activity' argument is irrelevant for 2 reasons:
1. as demonstrated by Obama, it can not only have brain activity, but be born and surviving completely outside of and detached from the mother and still not be seen as a "person".

2. the 'brain activity' argument is Secular Humanist, it is therefore purely religious in nature and thus has no place is law. You will note that in the legal definition of "person" contains no reference of brain activity. The argument stems from "I think, therefore I am", and is purely theological.
 
Re: Right Is The Opposite Of Left | Correct Is The Opposite Of Incorrect

"Right Is The Opposite Of Left | Correct Is The Opposite Of Incorrect"
Institutional laws that detail punishments, assuming they can be implemented, do not prohibit behavior, yet without the consequences of reprisal there is said to be no justice for the law.
One may argue semantically that an institutional law exists yet it is unenforced; however, naturalism would not conjecture that natural laws, based on physical laws, remain unenforced.

Are you versed in perspectivism?
Perspectivism emphatically rejects objective truths, stipulating that all perceptions of events are truth relative as subjective realisms.
Your reference to a "right to life" specifically relates "right" and "wrong" which is an expression of personal belief that you are compelled to survive, namely through procreation; yet, that opinion has nothing to do with an objective truth for an inalieable entitlement based on natural rights and natural law.

"To be or not to be? What difference does it make?"

No, not "personal", communal. Society has agreed on these principals and my signing onto them in no way subjectifies them to the micro level of personal belief.
 
The 'brain activity' argument is irrelevant for 2 reasons:
1. as demonstrated by Obama, it can not only have brain activity, but be born and surviving completely outside of and detached from the mother and still not be seen as a "person".

2. the 'brain activity' argument is Secular Humanist, it is therefore purely religious in nature and thus has no place is law. You will note that in the legal definition of "person" contains no reference of brain activity. The argument stems from "I think, therefore I am", and is purely theological.

Edit:
3. Main stream Pro-Choice makes no argument that as soon as brain activity is evident in the ZEF, that the ZEF is then a "person" under the law; that Roe-v-Wade Section 9a then makes all elective abortion "murder" under the law. Therefore, we can conclude that the 'brain activity' argument is disingenuous. Pro-Choice assuming the false premise that they would ban abortion were brain activity present.
 
Last edited:
You are misrepresenting your opponent’s argument by deliberately over generalizing the issue of dna. You opponent made no claim that something is human "simply because it has dna", so please don't claim that they did.
Forgive me, some of the things the person said angered me.

The 'brain activity' argument is irrelevant for 2 reasons:
1. as demonstrated by Obama, it can not only have brain activity, but be born and surviving completely outside of and detached from the mother and still not be seen as a "person".
I am not here to defend or promote Barrack Obama's views on abortion.

2. the 'brain activity' argument is Secular Humanist, it is therefore purely religious in nature and thus has no place is law. You will note that in the legal definition of "person" contains no reference of brain activity. The argument stems from "I think, therefore I am", and is purely theological.
If the definition of a "person" is "a human being", and the definition of "human being" is "Organism + Human DNA" then any organism with human DNA is a person, right?

Is a mosquito human then?
 
Edit:
3. Main stream Pro-Choice makes no argument that as soon as brain activity is evident in the ZEF, that the ZEF is then a "person" under the law; that Roe-v-Wade Section 9a then makes all elective abortion "murder" under the law. Therefore, we can conclude that the 'brain activity' argument is disingenuous. Pro-Choice assuming the false premise that they would ban abortion were brain activity present.

Agin, i am not here to defend Barrack Obama, or any other mainstream democrat.

I Would vote to ban abortion if brain activity is present.
 
I am not here to defend or promote Barrack Obama's views on abortion.

Barrack Obama was not the only person who voted on that bill. Obama, being the Democrat candidate for president, is the current poster-boy for Pro-Choice.

If the definition of a "person" is "a human being", and the definition of "human being" is "Organism + Human DNA" then any organism with human DNA is a person, right?

Any organism composed of human dna is a "person", yes.

Is a mosquito human then?

You are attempting to misrepresent my argument through the word "with", implying that simply ingesting food containing dna is the exact same thing as having been made from that dna.

Your argument is obviously invalid and I think you know it.
 
I Would vote to ban abortion if brain activity is present.

What do you accept as "brain activity"? There is electrical activity very early.
 
Agin, i am not here to defend Barrack Obama, or any other mainstream democrat.

I Would vote to ban abortion if brain activity is present.

You will find good company with Jallman, then.
 
It would be helpful if you articulated that disagreement, then, instead of simply stating that you disagree.

I could, however, I am afraid all of my arguments would be "Secular Humanist, and therefore purely religious in nature and thus have no place is law."

I am not sure how to proceed.
 
I could, however, I am afraid all of my arguments would be "Secular Humanist, and therefore purely religious in nature and thus have no place is law."

I am not sure how to proceed.

The best way is to just do it. Dive in and give it your best shot. If you loose, so what? There will be another thread identical to this before you can say "Evil Conservative".

The only time you realy need to worry about it is when your in a True Debate.

We can have fun with this. I can go a diferent rout and force you to explore why you think the way you do.

You never know, I just might learn something.....

One of the best pieces of advice I can give you is to keep track of sources other people provide in your Favorites list. I sort mine by subject, but you might find a way that works better for you.
 
Last edited:
Uhh, ok, i guess I'll give it a shot.

If Humanisum is

http://www.merriam-webster.com said:
a doctrine, attitude, or way of life centered on human interests or values
And secular is
http://www.merriam-webster.com said:
of or relating to the worldly or temporal
Then aren't all laws that do not come from another religion secular humanist?

Are not all just laws created "centered on human interests or values"

I mean, the whole idea that it is wrong to kill another man is humanist am i wrong?
 
Uhh, ok, i guess I'll give it a shot.

If Humanisum is


And secular is

Then aren't all laws that do not come from another religion secular humanist?

Are not all just laws created "centered on human interests or values"

I mean, the whole idea that it is wrong to kill another man is humanist am i wrong?

What does your source say "Secular Humanism" is?
 
"humanistic philosophy viewed as a nontheistic religion antagonistic to traditional religion"

My point would be that Law IS a "humanistic philosophy"

And that most just laws are "nontheistic"
 
"humanistic philosophy viewed as a nontheistic religion antagonistic to traditional religion"

My point would be that Law IS a "humanistic philosophy"

And that most just laws are "nontheistic"

How could we tell the difference between a "Secular Humanist" law and a simply 'humanist' law?
 
How could we tell the difference between a "Secular Humanist" law and a simply 'humanist' law?

Well, if you view "Secular" and "Humanist" as two different words.

A "secular humanist" law would be a law that is centered on human interests or values and relating to the worldly or temporal.

While a "humanist" law would be a law that is centered on human interests or values, but not necessarily relating to the worldly or temporal.

If you view "secular humanist" as a single word.

A "secular humanist" law would be a law based on "humanistic philosophy viewed as a nontheistic religion".

And a "humanist" law would be a law based on "humanistic philosophy" but not necessarily viewed as a "nontheistic religion".
 
Well, if you view "Secular" and "Humanist" as two different words.

A "secular humanist" law would be a law that is centered on human interests or values and relating to the worldly or temporal.

While a "humanist" law would be a law that is centered on human interests or values, but not necessarily relating to the worldly or temporal.

If you view "secular humanist" as a single word.

A "secular humanist" law would be a law based on "humanistic philosophy viewed as a nontheistic religion".

And a "humanist" law would be a law based on "humanistic philosophy" but not necessarily viewed as a "nontheistic religion".

I see. It's your argument that humanist laws are acceptable, correct?
 
I would argue a law that is centered the interests of humanity is acceptable, yes.
 
I would argue a law that is centered the interests of humanity is acceptable, yes.

When we consider the various contradicting opinions, views and morals of humanity across history, how do we arrive at what humanity's interests are? How do we establish our interests amidst so many different points of view?
 
When we consider the various contradicting opinions, views and morals of humanity across history, how do we arrive at what humanity's interests are? How do we establish our interests amidst so many different points of view?

Get out there and shout!

Protest, join a union, make a blog, debate, volunteer for a political campaign, or even run for office yourself.

Persuade others to your way of thinking, and set a good example.

But most importantly, vote.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom