Abortion vs. Contraception

[Felicity]

How are we demeaned?

your life is "worth" less in the eyes of your society. When human life and its value is determined to be a COMMODITY--it open the door to viewing people as objects to use, or dispose of as those in a position of power deem advantageous to their position.

By possibly finding treatments for cancer?

A "possibility" is in question--and then...to "save lives" by indiscriminately creating and killing lives. Can't you see the inherent contradiction?

I am not dismissing your position, I am asking you to clarify. Tell me how.

You "dehumanize" the very young in order to USE them as slaves to your desire. It is wrong, no matter how altruistic your intention is.

Dehumanization - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contrary to God's justice??? I'm sure he'd be pleased to have a new human being join him in heaven!

You are attributing human "emotion" to immutable God.

Put yourself in the clone's position. You were just concieved. You are going to die in a few months because a bunch of scientists want to grow your organs to try to help save some sick people. How do you feel?

Like a lab rat--angry--used--mistreated...

You probably feel scared because you are going to die. But you, Felicity, believe in heaven, so there's really nothing to fear at all. After you die, you will get to live with God forever. Lucky you.

Yeah..."lucky me.":doh See--you are JUSTIFYING EVIL ACTIONS. That's so twisted.

Aren't you glad that you were concieved? Your life may be grim, but your afterlife is gonna be lots of fun. Wouldn't you rather live forever in Paradise than not exist at all?

At first I thought you were serious--some kid with a silly notion. Now I think you're a troll.:2wave:

 

[1069]

What's with this rant?

It's just appalling- horrifying- to me how quickly you and your ilk get out of control, deprived for a few days of checks and balances such as my outspoken opposition and Jallman's tempering influence.
It should stand as a lesson to anyone who is tempted to relax their vigilance and allow the Conservative Fundamentalist Right a little extra leash.
Unchecked and unopposed, you'd have us all under fascist totalitarian rule before we could say "Theocractic Dystopia".
Allowed to get away unchallenged with repeatedly braying out "Because it demeans human dignity!" about every freedom you wish others didn't have and every civil right you'd like to abrogate, you'd probably next be trying to ban the sale of condoms or deputizing squadrons of government goons to go tiptoing through citizens' begonia patches at night and peeking in our bedroom windows to make sure we're screwing in an appropriately pious and godly manner.
It's SICK.

Fellow forum members, why do you allow the Right to run rampant on this forum- unchecked and unchallenged- any time I turn my back for ten minutes?
This forum may be mere idle entertainment to some of you, but in fact it's society in microcosm.

 

[Felicity]

It's just appalling- horrifying- to me how quickly you and your ilk get out of control, deprived for a few days of checks and balances such as my outspoken opposition and Jallman's tempering influence.
It should stand as a lesson to anyone who is tempted to relax their vigilance and allow the Conservative Fundamentalist Right a little extra leash.
Unchecked and unopposed, you'd have us all under fascist totalitarian rule before we could say "Theocractic Dystopia".
Allowed to get away unchallenged with repeatedly braying out "Because it demeans human dignity!" about every freedom you wish others didn't have and every civil right you'd like to abrogate, you'd probably next be trying to ban the sale of condoms or deputizing squadrons of government goons to go tiptoing through citizens' begonia patches at night and peeking in our bedroom windows to make sure we're screwing in an appropriately pious and godly manner.
It's SICK.

Fellow forum members, why do you allow the Right to run rampant on this forum- unchecked and unchallenged- any time I turn my back for ten minutes?
This forum may be mere idle entertainment to some of you, but in fact it's society in microcosm.

You are a lunatic. And a self aggrandizing lunatic at that. Whatever, Ten...do you feel better yet?:lol:

 

[talloulou]

How is a woman who terminates an unwanted pregnancy inherently "demeaned"?

The life of the unborn human organism which is killed during the abortion is demeaned.

You view equality between the sexes as "demeaning" or "degrading"

I view lack of equality in affording inalienable rights to all of mankind demeaning for all of mankind.

 

[Felicity]

It's not a euphemism; sex work is what it's actually called (it's an all-encompassing, morally neutral umbrella term that covers everything from porn to stripping to actually selling sex for money).

All of which is PROSTITUTING.

2 : to devote to corrupt or unworthy purposes : DEBASE <prostitute one's talents>

"Prostituting" is a derogatory and defamatory term used by dumbarses who don't actually know anything about it, but want to talk sh!t about it anyway, simply because they enjoy listening to the sound of their own ignorant flapping yaps.

And messing with the language in order to feel good about their morally bankrupt selves is the relativists favorite pass-time.


EDIT...

BTW...

Main Entry: sex worker
Function: noun
: a person whose work involves sexually explicit behavior; especially : PROSTITUTE 1

 

[talloulou]

No, I can't. I can only rationalize doing it to clones. I don't know why you think I can rationalize doing it to other humans too. I don't need you to tell me what I believe. I believe that it is okay to destroy clones only. Okay?

I can rationalize the executions of mass murderers (such as Hitler, Saddam) but not of teenagers or any other criminals.

Many people (I don't know about me personally) can rationalize torturing specifc prisoners of war to obtain information. But the same people would be very much against the torture of little children or of innocent civilians. But according to you, if you can rationalize the torture of one segment of the human population, you can rationalize trturing other segments also.

If we as humans agree that ALL humans (all living human animals) have certain basic inalienable rights and then we protect those rights across the board that is better than picking and choosing which humans should be afforded basic inalienable rights based on personhood, citizenship, race, gender, age, ect.....

I understand that you would show huge amounts of generosity in which humans deserved basic inalienable rights but not eveyone is as generous as you are.

Many humans living around the world today are not protected by basic inalienable rights such as the right to life.

Leaving the door open so that "All humans are created equal EXCEPT......"
leaves the door open for violence, abuse, exploitation, ect.

Agreeing on basic inalienable rights for everyone insures that no one is allowed to get away with using whatever their particular prejudice happens to be as an excuse to violently assualt another living human with any degree of social acceptance.

 

[talloulou]

No it doesn't. It only implies that every CLONE is a slave to its creator. If there's something wrong with my logic, please show me SPECIFICALLY. I think we both agreed on the three premises, and the result follows logically. If there is a mistake it should be easy to find.



The difference is that the kids were created naturally. The parents most likely chose to have sex, and they were the result. All natural. They exist naturally as a union of sperm and egg.

Clones are artificial (I know that's not the right word but you all know what I mean). They do not exist in nature and they never will exist in nature. The only way to make a clone exist is through an artificial process. because these clones are not natural human beings and only exist because scientists gave them life, they owe their lives to the scientists.

So the difference is that the mother's children were created through a natural process and clones were created through an artificial process. You could say that the natural children "earned" their existence, only it was really more like luck. But clones are completely unnatural.

All of that sounds like an excuse to treat anyone whose mother underwent fertility treatment as an "unnatural human." I don't think that would go over too well as infertility treatment is fairly common and tons of humans are created unnaturally. :roll:

Do you disagree with Premise 1? ("It is better to live and die than never live at all.") You already said yes to this question.

Do you disagree with Premise 2? ("Embryonic stem-cell research gives life to a human being and then kills it.")

Do you disagree with Premise 3? ("Under normal conditions, the victim of embryonic stem-cell research would never live at all.")

This is completely illogical. Yes I agree with premise one.

As far as premise 2 goes I could agree to give life to a human being and then kill it but that is completely socially unacceptable.

As for premise 3 under normal conditions (if I didn't get pregnant as pregnancy itself is not a "normal condition) my child would never have lived at all thus I'm free to kill it as I brought it into this world, brought it into this world by adopting a condition thats not normal (pregnancy) and then decided to kill it for any number of reasons that might be beneficial to me...the creator.

Or do you think that my process of substitution was incorrect? ("Embryonic stem-cell research is better than normal conditions.")

I think your logic inevitable sets up a situation where your mother has the right to kill you at anytime for any reason given she was your creator and brought you in to the world by adopting the not normal condition of pregnancy.

 

[1069]

All of which is PROSTITUTING.

2 : to devote to corrupt or unworthy purposes : DEBASE <prostitute one's talents>

Demean, degrade, debase... debullshit. :roll:

Your labels don't mean sh!t to anybody but you and the three or four other people in this country that agree with your dogmatic, doctrinaire fantasies.
Normal people are glad that wingnuts like you don't like them.

 

[missypea]

The life of the unborn human organism which is killed during the abortion is demeaned.

I've purposely stayed away from the abortion threads for many reasons, the above statement is just one of them. We're getting ready to go on vacation so I'll be disappearing again...no worries

I don't seem to fit into any “category or point of view” and will probably have both the Lifers and the Choicers on my butt, but since we all relate to life from our past relationships and experiences, this is my point of view on it.

I was a healthy gal, no pid's and in the prime of my life.
I had my first pregnancy when I was 25 and my son was delivered by c-section (Group Health aka Group Death).
One year later I developed a massive cyst on my ovary that the good doctors at Group Death told me not to worry about because my body would absorb back. After spending a week in bed because I couldn't walk from the pain, I was suddenly ok.
One year later I got pregnant and had a miscarriage.
One year after that I got pregnant and had an ectopic pregnancy.
One year after that I had another ectopic pregnancy.
I switched insurance coverages.
One year after that I had surgery to repair my only good tube...(found out during that surgery that the cyst I had earlier had blown up my ovary and mangled up my tube).
One year after that I had another ectopic pregnancy. I told the doc going into surgery that I never wanted to get pregnant again. He made sure that I never did.

Okay, there's the history. I wanted all of my babies, desperately. Even after all these years it can still break my heart. Reading statements about how my children were demeaned because I chose to live or how they were nothing but a scientific organisim, or worse..... can be upsetting to read.

Now the flip side of it is this. I know the heartbreak that ending a wanted pregnancy can cause. I wanted all of my babies. I was never in a position that many other women have found themselves in.

I was never young, alone and pregnant. Nor was I the mother of six who discovered she was pregnant with a mouth she couldn't feed. Nor was I pregnant from rape. Nor was I pregnant by birth control that didn't work. Nor was I pregnant and in a dysfunctional/abusive relationship. Nor was I ever pregnant with an unwanted pregnancy.

I don't know what that feels like but I would imagine the heartbreak of carrying out the pregnancy would equal the heartbreak I felt by ending one.

Abortion....it's not for me but I don't want it to be crimalized. I can understand the emotions of the fear and anger and resentment that comes from finding yourself pregnant with an unwanted pregnancy. I felt those emotions ending the pregnancies that I desperately wanted.

 

[Felicity]

Demean, degrade, debase... debullshit. :roll:

Your labels don't mean sh!t to anybody but you and the three or four other people in this country that agree with your dogmatic, doctrinaire fantasies.
Normal people are glad that wingnuts like you don't like them.

Why are you making this about me, personally? Is it because you can't logically argue the rationale for your position adequately. That's what the ad hominem fallacy is by definition. You make your argument about the debater, rather than the debate. It is evidence of a failure on the part of the person issuing the adhoms. Science isn't on your side, the dictionary isn't on your side, the philosophical community isn't on your side...all you have is that one lousy law...and it's on its way out.... :shrug: I guess I can understand your frustration.

 

[Felicity]

I've purposely stayed away from the abortion threads for many reasons, the above statement is just one of them. We're getting ready to go on vacation so I'll be disappearing again...no worries

I don't seem to fit into any “category or point of view” and will probably have both the Lifers and the Choicers on my butt, but since we all relate to life from our past relationships and experiences, this is my point of view on it.

I was a healthy gal, no pid's and in the prime of my life.
I had my first pregnancy when I was 25 and my son was delivered by c-section (Group Health aka Group Death).
One year later I developed a massive cyst on my ovary that the good doctors at Group Death told me not to worry about because my body would absorb back. After spending a week in bed because I couldn't walk from the pain, I was suddenly ok.
One year later I got pregnant and had a miscarriage.
One year after that I got pregnant and had an ectopic pregnancy.
One year after that I had another ectopic pregnancy.
I switched insurance coverages.
One year after that I had surgery to repair my only good tube...(found out during that surgery that the cyst I had earlier had blown up my ovary and mangled up my tube).
One year after that I had another ectopic pregnancy. I told the doc going into surgery that I never wanted to get pregnant again. He made sure that I never did.

Okay, there's the history. I wanted all of my babies, desperately. Even after all these years it can still break my heart. Reading statements about how my children were demeaned because I chose to live or how they were nothing but a scientific organisim, or worse..... can be upsetting to read.

Now the flip side of it is this. I know the heartbreak that ending a wanted pregnancy can cause. I wanted all of my babies. I was never in a position that many other women have found themselves in.

I was never young, alone and pregnant. Nor was I the mother of six who discovered she was pregnant with a mouth she couldn't feed. Nor was I pregnant from rape. Nor was I pregnant by birth control that didn't work. Nor was I pregnant and in a dysfunctional/abusive relationship. Nor was I ever pregnant with an unwanted pregnancy.

I don't know what that feels like but I would imagine the heartbreak of carrying out the pregnancy would equal the heartbreak I felt by ending one.

Abortion....it's not for me but I don't want it to be crimalized. I can understand the emotions of the fear and anger and resentment that comes from finding yourself pregnant with an unwanted pregnancy. I felt those emotions ending the pregnancies that I desperately wanted.

Nobody--even the die-hards like myself--consider medically necessary treatments to preserve the life of the mother that result in the death of the embryo, "demeaning"--a very unfortunate circumstance--yes, but not a disregard for the value of human life that the UNNECESSARY abortions or killing of embryos is. Your medical procedures were intended to preserve your life--ectopic pregnancies are unviable and a major threat to the woman--they were not intended to thwart life--and Pro-Life knows that and supports you.

 

[talloulou]

I've purposely stayed away from the abortion threads for many reasons, the above statement is just one of them. We're getting ready to go on vacation so I'll be disappearing again...no worries

I don't seem to fit into any “category or point of view” and will probably have both the Lifers and the Choicers on my butt, but since we all relate to life from our past relationships and experiences, this is my point of view on it.

I was a healthy gal, no pid's and in the prime of my life.
I had my first pregnancy when I was 25 and my son was delivered by c-section (Group Health aka Group Death).
One year later I developed a massive cyst on my ovary that the good doctors at Group Death told me not to worry about because my body would absorb back. After spending a week in bed because I couldn't walk from the pain, I was suddenly ok.
One year later I got pregnant and had a miscarriage.
One year after that I got pregnant and had an ectopic pregnancy.
One year after that I had another ectopic pregnancy.
I switched insurance coverages.
One year after that I had surgery to repair my only good tube...(found out during that surgery that the cyst I had earlier had blown up my ovary and mangled up my tube).
One year after that I had another ectopic pregnancy. I told the doc going into surgery that I never wanted to get pregnant again. He made sure that I never did.

Okay, there's the history. I wanted all of my babies, desperately. Even after all these years it can still break my heart. Reading statements about how my children were demeaned because I chose to live or how they were nothing but a scientific organisim, or worse..... can be upsetting to read.

Now the flip side of it is this. I know the heartbreak that ending a wanted pregnancy can cause. I wanted all of my babies. I was never in a position that many other women have found themselves in.

I was never young, alone and pregnant. Nor was I the mother of six who discovered she was pregnant with a mouth she couldn't feed. Nor was I pregnant from rape. Nor was I pregnant by birth control that didn't work. Nor was I pregnant and in a dysfunctional/abusive relationship. Nor was I ever pregnant with an unwanted pregnancy.

I don't know what that feels like but I would imagine the heartbreak of carrying out the pregnancy would equal the heartbreak I felt by ending one.

Abortion....it's not for me but I don't want it to be crimalized. I can understand the emotions of the fear and anger and resentment that comes from finding yourself pregnant with an unwanted pregnancy. I felt those emotions ending the pregnancies that I desperately wanted.

I would never view medically necessary abortions as criminal. In my mind they adequately fit the description of self defense. If one human organism severely threatens the life of another human organism then that is completely different from one human inflicting violence on another without justification. As far as "scientific organisms" I generally refer to the unborn as "living human organisms" because scienitifically, just like you and I, that is what they are and that is the only definition that doesn't tend to be refuted by prochoicers. If I were to call them unborn babies, children, human beings, ect I would get replies stating that the prochoicers were clueless as to what I was talking about! The abortion debates are nothing if not word wars.

 

[1069]

Why are you making this about me, personally?

Probably because you're the one traipsing around the forum spewing diarrhea out your mouth (or keyboard, as the case may be), and then accusing every forum member who doesn't agree with your garbage (which is, like, everyone except Jerry and Tallou) of being bitter, angry individuals.

If anyone's bitter and angry, it's you; you're the one who doesn't have the force of law behind your convictions, and NEVER will.

 

[Felicity]

Probably because you're the one traipsing around the forum spewing diarrhea out your mouth (or keyboard, as the case may be), and then accusing every forum member who doesn't agree with your garbage (which is, like, everyone except Jerry and Tallou) of being bitter, angry individuals.

If anyone's bitter and angry, it's you; you're the one who doesn't have the force of law behind your convictions, and NEVER will.

You and hypgnostic are the angry ones...rivrrat is the sociopath--and granny is just cranky and possibly senile since she forgets arguments she's been totally proved wrong on and she attempts to recycle them (like the human noun human adjective silliness). :doh

Anyway...I think if you took a poll--you might find that you do come off as an angry person--pretty smart and very clever/funny...but...yep...angry. On second thought....it might just make you more angry.... :shrug:

 

[Peralin]

Yeah..."lucky me.":doh See--you are JUSTIFYING EVIL ACTIONS. That's so twisted.

If "evil actions" are logically and morally justified, they aren't evil actions. There is nothing twisted about believing that stem-cell research is good if you can morally justify the actions that you take. The problem is that you are not open to the possibilitiy that you might be wrong, that stem-cell research might actually be a good thing.

Believe me, Felicity, I know how you feel. I was absolutely against stem cell research until about a month ago. I understand that you think you are fighting for what it right, but there is a possibility that you are wrong. You still might be right, but at least consider that what you call "evil actions" may not be what they seem.

At first I thought you were serious--some kid with a silly notion. Now I think you're a troll.:2wave:

If you want to exchange insults with 1069, that's fine with me. But I haven't personally attacked you in any way and you calling me "twisted" and "a troll" don't help your argument. Sounds like you're being kinda hypocritical, eh?

 

[Peralin]

If we as humans agree that ALL humans (all living human animals) have certain basic inalienable rights and then we protect those rights across the board that is better than picking and choosing which humans should be afforded basic inalienable rights based on personhood, citizenship, race, gender, age, ect.....

The right to life is not agreed upon as on of these inalienable rights. That's why we debate stuff like this. Some think it is, some think it isn't.

Many humans living around the world today are not protected by basic inalienable rights such as the right to life.

You're getting into government and laws. I'm not trying to say that stem-cell research should be legal. Only that it is moral. Although I think that it is moral, I'm not sure I want it to be legal (because of many reasons which I may discuss someday in a different thread.) So let's not bring government into this.

Leaving the door open so that "All humans are created equal EXCEPT......"
leaves the door open for violence, abuse, exploitation, ect.

Agan, I'm not sure that the government should make the exceptions I am making.

Agreeing on basic inalienable rights for everyone insures that no one is allowed to get away with using whatever their particular prejudice happens to be as an excuse to violently assualt another living human with any degree of social acceptance.

Let's stay on the topic of morality please.

 

[1069]

The right to life is not agreed upon as on of these inalienable rights.

True; socially-sanctioned killing is routine.
The majority seem to agree that it's okay, as long as it's handled "humanely" and does not impose unnecessary, prolonged or undue suffering (ie, capital punishment, war, etc).

 

[Peralin]

All of that sounds like an excuse to treat anyone whose mother underwent fertility treatment as an "unnatural human." I don't think that would go over too well as infertility treatment is fairly common and tons of humans are created unnaturally. :roll:

No, I consider anyone except clones to be considered natural human beings.

Yes I agree with premise one.

Good.

As far as premise 2 goes I could agree to give life to a human being and then kill it but that is completely socially unacceptable.

STOP! The premise is a fact, not an opinion! You don't need to agree to the morality of the statement, you only need to agreee that it is a true statment. For the sake of the logic statement, we have to back away from all prior beliefs about stem-cell research. We are looking for basic facts that we can use to get a conclusion. Now we're already past the hardest part, Premise 1.

Premise 2: Embryonic stem-cell research gives life to a human being and then kills it.

Is this a true statement? Yes, it is. The research DOES give life to human beings and then kills them. Do you think this statement is false? All you need to do is tell me whether this statement is true or false. I really don't think there's any argument to this one because you believe life begins at conception, right? SO, IS THIS A TRUE STATEMENT OR A FALSE STATEMENT?

As for premise 3 under normal conditions (if I didn't get pregnant as pregnancy itself is not a "normal condition) my child would never have lived at all thus I'm free to kill it as I brought it into this world, brought it into this world by adopting a condition thats not normal (pregnancy) and then decided to kill it for any number of reasons that might be beneficial to me...the creator.

Again, you don't need to discuss the morality of the premise, only the validity. Under normal conditions, the victim of embryonic stem-cell research would never live at all. Is this true or false? I think again that you will say it is true, because the sperm and egg could never have connected had it not been for the process. There's really no argument here either.

I think your logic inevitable sets up a situation where your mother has the right to kill you at anytime for any reason given she was your creator and brought you in to the world by adopting the not normal condition of pregnancy.

You know what, forget the conclusion! I'll bring that back later. But to use logic, we must have statements that we both agree to be true statements:

Premise 1: "It is better to live and die than never live at all." = TRUE STATEMENT (we agreed on this, remember?)

Premise 2: "Embryonic stem-cell research gives life to a human being and then kills it." = TRUE STATEMENT (It definitely does! It brings together sperm and egg to create a human being, then it destroys that human being)

Premise 3:"Under normal conditions, the victim of embryonic stem-cell research would never live at all." = TRUE STATEMENT (It definitely wouldn't exist! The sperm and egg couldn't possibly come together without the help of scientists!)

Please, before we go on, you must accept that the three statements above are true statements. Whether you believe that any of them justify stem-cell research is irrelevant. For now, just tell me that all three of these statements are true. Ask anybody you know, that's the first step in logic.

 

[CaptainCourtesy]

Moderator's Warning:

People can we all settle down here, a bit. There's been enough anger and snipping in this forum for a bit, so please stop the personal attacks.

 

[Felicity]

If "evil actions" are logically and morally justified, they aren't evil actions.

The conclusions you are drawing are NEITHER. Logically is is contradictory to save life by killing life, and morally you are subjugating--DEHUMANIZING-- a class of humans to allow their destruction.

There is nothing twisted about believing that stem-cell research is good if you can morally justify the actions that you take.

That is called RATIONALIZING...

Main Entry: ra·tio·nal·ize
Pronunciation: \ˈrash-nə-ˌlīz, ˈra-shə-nə-ˌlīz\
Function: verb
Inflected Form(s): -ized; -iz·ing
Date: 1803
transitive verb b: to attribute (one's actions) to rational and creditable motives without analysis of true and especially unconscious motives <rationalized his dislike of his brother>; broadly : to create an excuse or more attractive explanation for <rationalize the problem>

The problem is that you are not open to the possibilitiy that you might be wrong, that stem-cell research might actually be a good thing.

Stem cell research IS a good thing...killing embryos to do it is NOT...You don't have to kill embryos--research supports that conclusion. Why the desire to kill embryos rather than persue morally and logically consistent modes of research into stem cell solutions?

....but at least consider that what you call "evil actions" may not be what they seem.

The height of evil is doing/supporting evil and calling it "good."

you calling me "twisted" and "a troll" don't help your argument. Sounds like you're being kinda hypocritical, eh?

Your conclusions are in fact TWISTED--your logic is skewed, your rationalization is circular....so that part is at least a FACT. If you are so sure that I "may be wrong"...imagine that this month old notion of yours may also be wrong. Then--stop merely "suggesting" I'm wrong and come up with some sound LOGIC.

The troll is speculation due to your repeatedly glossing over the main points of counter argument and reposting the same twisted logic without addressing the issues brought up. Namely the question of human JUSTICE. If your not a troll and you are just a thick headed kid. Fine. Sorry for suggesting you appear to be a troll to me.

 

[Felicity]

The right to life is not agreed upon as on of these inalienable rights. That's why we debate stuff like this. Some think it is, some think it isn't.

When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men,

For humans, these TRUTHS are SELF-EVIDENT and UNALIENABLE. GOVERNMENTS are INSTITUTED to SECURE these unalienable rights.

Those "not agreeing upon" the unalienable right to life in the United States system of governance don't know history.

Let's stay on the topic of morality please.

Then explain how your logical inconsitancies--specifically the ones I pointed out above--are actually logical. And then explain how killing life to "possibly" save life is objectively moral.

Defend your position rather than just saying "I think" this is so...

 

[Peralin]

The conclusions you are drawing are NEITHER. Logically is is contradictory to save life by killing life, and morally you are subjugating--DEHUMANIZING-- a class of humans to allow their destruction. That is called RATIONALIZING...

Main Entry: ra·tio·nal·ize
Pronunciation: \ˈrash-nə-ˌlīz, ˈra-shə-nə-ˌlīz\
Function: verb
Inflected Form(s): -ized; -iz·ing
Date: 1803
transitive verb b: to attribute (one's actions) to rational and creditable motives without analysis of true and especially unconscious motives <rationalized his dislike of his brother>; broadly : to create an excuse or more attractive explanation for <rationalize the problem>

Logically: I provided an awesomely simple logic statement and you disagreed witht the very first premise, that it is better to live and die (and even go to heaven) than never live at all. I don't understand why you would say that, and I don't think anybody else does either. Even Talloulou agreed with Premise 1. My entire point is that the victims of embryonic stem-cell research would not exist without embryonic stem-cell research. From the point of the embryo, I think we should all be able to see that embryonic stem-cell research is good.

Morally: I am not rationalizing an evil action. I am stepping away from all of my previous beliefs about stem-cell research to look at the facts impartially. By doing this, I have realized that from the point of the embryo, embryonic stem-cell research is a good thing because the embryo gains life and then gets to live with God for all eternity. YOU are the one who says it is an "evil action" that I'm justifying. I don't think it's an evil action because of the good that it does. Try looking on the bright side, Felicity.

Stem cell research IS a good thing...killing embryos to do it is NOT...You don't have to kill embryos--research supports that conclusion. Why the desire to kill embryos rather than persue morally and logically consistent modes of research into stem cell solutions?

I asked from the very beginning for this to be a debate of ideas, not of definitions. You knew exactly what I meant. I guess I'll have to start writing "embryonic" every single time. Thanks a lot.

And I have no idea why people think that E(mbryonic)-stem cells are more useful than A(dult)-stem cells. I have no problem with using A-cells, but I have no problem with using E-cells either. At least be open to the idea that E-cell research may be a good thing.

The height of evil is doing/supporting evil and calling it "good."

MAYBE, just MAYBE, what you think is evil might actually be good. As my list of pros and cons showed, lots of good things can come from E-cell research. And MAYBE, just MAYBE, someday you'll decide that the pros outweigh the cons.

If you are so sure that I "may be wrong"...imagine that this month old notion of yours may also be wrong.

I am 100 percent sure that you may be wrong. And I am 100 percent sure that I may be wrong. But you haven't given me any reason to change my mind other than the "humanity is demeaned" argument, which is ridiculous.

Then--stop merely "suggesting" I'm wrong and come up with some sound LOGIC.

My logic statement is very sound. Now it's your turn. Tell me exactly why you disagree with this statment:

It is better to live and die than never exist at all.

I don't want to hear any of this "demeaning" stuff because that has nothing to do with this statement. Please stay on this topic and explain your disagreement.

The troll is speculation due to your repeatedly glossing over the main points of counter argument and reposting the same twisted logic without addressing the issues brought up. Namely the question of human JUSTICE. If your not a troll and you are just a thick headed kid. Fine. Sorry for suggesting you appear to be a troll to me.

The problem is that you are focusing on the effect on society as a whole, whereas I'm focusing on the effect on the embryo. E-research may be bad for society. I'm open to the idea that the negative consequences on society could outweigh thepositive impact on the ermbryo. But that discussion is for another thread. All I'm saying is that, from the point of the embryo, E(mbryonic stem-cell)-research is definitely a good thing.

 

[Peralin]

When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men,

For humans, these TRUTHS are SELF-EVIDENT and UNALIENABLE. GOVERNMENTS are INSTITUTED to SECURE these unalienable rights.

How many times do I have to say it? I DON'T CARE IF EMBRYONIC STEM CELL RESEARCH IS LEGAL OR ILLEGAL. I HAVEN'T DONE ENOUGH RESEARCH TO KNOW WHICH IS BETTER FOR AMERICA. Got it? Life may be protected in the Constitution. Fine. That may make E-research illegal, but certainly not immoral. All I am arguing is that E-research is not immoral. Got it?

Those "not agreeing upon" the unalienable right to life in the United States system of governance don't know history.

That's really arrogant. Their support of the constitution in no way shows how much they know about history. The constitution isn't perfect. Just because something's protected in the constitution doesn't mean it SHOULD be protected. For example, I'm against the right to bear arms. Does that mean I don't know my history? Give me a break.

Then explain how your logical inconsitancies--specifically the ones I pointed out above--are actually logical.

Those are legal inconsistencies, not moral inconsistencies.

And then explain how killing life to "possibly" save life is objectively moral.

The best way to do that is to follow my logic statement. So please help me do this by esplaining why you disagree with Premise 1 (from the embryo's point of view, not from God's and not from society's).

 

[RightOfCenter]

IMHO, life begins at conception. If you prevent conception there is no loss of life. Contraception prevents conception. No life has been created.

Abortion involves ending the life that has been created at conception.

There are so few cases in which you make sensical posts, that I had to go out of my way to congratulate you on this one. Nice job.

 

[Khayembii Communique]

IMHO, life begins at conception. If you prevent conception there is no loss of life. Contraception prevents conception. No life has been created.

Abortion involves ending the life that has been created at conception.

In this case you're going to have to define "life" and justify your position that life begins at conception.

Is sperm alive?