You realize this is not something where there is proof right? Opinions on when this occurs are all over the place :shrug:
This is shown the fact that I can find literature that says something different. All depending on what aspects of development we want to look at.
PERSONHOOD---when does a fetus become a person?
It depends on the context. If I show pictures from the holocaust in response to someone saying that US entry into wwii was a complex decision then I would be guilty of emotional appeal.
It's really astonishing to read the inventive lengths and mental gymnastics people will go to in order to justify tearing babies from their mother's womb. They seem to just want those babies outta there and any reason will do. In fact they will even insist that some arguments, such as emotional appeal", be disallowed.
The elderly will be next on their agenda.
It's really astonishing to read the inventive lengths and mental gymnastics people will go to in order to justify tearing babies from their mother's womb. They seem to just want those babies outta there and any reason will do. In fact they will even insist that some arguments, such as emotional appeal", be disallowed.
The elderly will be next on their agenda.
That is already there, check out that 2,700 page monstrosity called Obamacare.
j-mac
I wasn't taking what you said out of context at all. Someone said a fetus is human your reply was to say that so is a person in an irreversible coma. The notion that you were just saying they are both human with no intended implications beyond that is just an absurd and transparent.
Disgusting humor.
j-mac
There should be no guilt involved in an appeal against war. All aspects must be looked at. Ultimately decisions will be made as to the risk to human life and future security of the nation and its people, despite any emotional appeals and fears.
A lack of emotion in the taking of a human life does not present "logic", Instead it suggests much darker areas of the human soul.
The "implications" are exactly what I stated. They are both unconscious and human. One exists before consciousness and one exists after - they're pretty similar. I have said all of this. They're is no further implication.
Eh...all of the factors around abortion should be considered as well.
Including 'emotional appeals'?
The point is that we all know life has value, however, stating that life has value is sufficient, going into imagery is not going to really sway someone, unless they have a weak mind. No more is gained by using imagery than stating "I believe this is life and it has value" because when looking at the information being presented, it is the same. Its just one is presented more cleanly, maturely, and factually.
The point is that we all know life has value, however, stating that life has value is sufficient, going into imagery is not going to really sway someone, unless they have a weak mind, but those people will be swayed by everything and aren't reliable to any position. No more is gained by using imagery than stating "I believe this is life and it has value" because when looking at the information being presented, it is the same. Its just one is presented more cleanly, maturely, and appropriate.
If someone doesn't believe that a stage of development has the full value of a fully developed human, they are likely not going to react emotionally because they do not have the same attachment to it that a person who does believe those things will. It does not indicate anything other than what belief the person already holds.
But of course it is going to sway people, which is why abortion activists don't want those appeals used. Otherwise why would the pro abortionists care?
People who have actually witnessed abortion can often be sickened at the sight and do a 180, as can those women who have submitted to an abortion.
People visiting an abattoir can become vegetarian, those involved in war can become peace activists.
If we cannot see and understand what is actually happening, how can we make rational judgments, especially on something as important as the taking of a human life?
Including 'emotional appeals'?
"Pretty similar" is a stretch not worthy of discussion. Best stick to the facts rather than fooling with failed analogies.
But of course it is going to sway people, which is why abortion activists don't want those appeals used. Otherwise why would the pro abortionists care?
People who have actually witnessed abortion can often be sickened at the sight and do a 180, as can those women who have submitted to an abortion.
People visiting an abattoir can become vegetarian, those involved in war can become peace activists.
If we cannot see and understand what is actually happening, how can we make rational judgments, especially on something as important as the taking of a human life?
People tend to hate being preached at about anything, especially if they disagree with it. How would you feel if some muslim dude was preaching at you for not praying five times a day? It would be annoying wouldn't it?
Actually, both lack consciousness which is one of the fundamental things that makes someone "alive" and "human" in the meaningful senses of the words - so it's a pretty good analogy.
A question....Do you believe it is proper for a person accused of murder of a pregnant woman is also charged with the murder of her unborn child?
j-mac
That's a good question.
I think they should be charged with murdering the unborn child as well, but not for any rational reason - only because he's a murderer anyway and his intent was malicious.
There are many that believe that Abortion providing docs are murdering unborn children as well.
j-mac
*yawn*
The OP doesn't say that all people who disagree with me are terrorists. Read it!
The people who intimidate and murder doctors, who intimidate and interfere with patients, who intimidate and threaten landlords and neighbors and whole communities, who blow up clinics, and, maim and kill clinic workers are terrorists.
This is terrorism.
View attachment 67113918
*clicky*
And this is terrorism.
View attachment 67113919
The people who use intimidation and violence are terrorists.
Radical social conservative political leaders almost shutdown the government over the minuscule percentage of the federal budget paid to Planned Parenthood for womens health services rendered under federal programs; funds which by law cannot be used for abortion.
Like all radicals, their cause is more important than anything else even the nation itself. They would and all but did hold the nation hostage to their cause. I call that terrorism.
See the new book: The Wichita Divide | Stephen Singular | Macmillan
I also see emotional appeals from pro abortionists.
There is no real reasons why there shouldn't be a display of emotions when human life is involved. Would the Leftists really prefer that no emotion was involved in the deaths of babies? Or the elderly, infirm, the handicapped or people otherwise dependent on our help??
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?