pro life and pro choice the words (1 Viewer)

[mikhail]

Are the words pro life and pro choice stopping a realistic debate on abortion i mean its an arguement in itself.Obvously everyone now automatically thinks of abortion when these words crop up but if you didnt apply them to abortion im sure people would say they supported both.

I mean how can you start a realistic debate when its, are you pro life? and as soon as you disagree its so your pro death?

you dont believe in choice?

I mean isnt there grey areas between the 2?

Would there be a more realistic debate if people didnt have these two camps that basically are meaningless terms?

I suggest debating the subject without using these words i know you proberly think this is just a stupid suggestion but give it a try maybe it will enable people to produce a more civilised debate.

 

[blastula]

Personally, I never subscribe or identify myself to being "pro-life" even though I speak out for the injustice against the unborn and therefore against abortion. I speak out my mind based mainly on the issue where injustice is done because as human beings we are our brothers' keepers.

I don't have problems with other people who want to be known as "pro-life" or "pro-choice" based on platforms or definitions. In that case they have to define themselves. But, if the words they chose to use for their title is too broad and misleading that they do not fit their definition, then I would use the word at issue to identify them, i.e. if the issue is about abortion, then if you are for women's choice to have abortion, then I'll simply identify them as pro-abortion. They still can call themselves "pro-choice" if they want, but I will refer to them as "pro-abortion" (I never use the term "pro-death"). If people want to call me anti-abortion, it is appropriate because I am against abortion.

There shouldn't be any grey area if it is about life or death issue. Even in medical emergency, the focus is alway to save both lives whenever possible.

 

[FallingPianos]

Are the words pro life and pro choice stopping a realistic debate on abortion i mean its an arguement in itself.Obvously everyone now automatically thinks of abortion when these words crop up but if you didnt apply them to abortion im sure people would say they supported both.

I mean how can you start a realistic debate when its, are you pro life? and as soon as you disagree its so your pro death?

you dont believe in choice?

I mean isnt there grey areas between the 2?

Would there be a more realistic debate if people didnt have these two camps that basically are meaningless terms?

I suggest debating the subject without using these words i know you proberly think this is just a stupid suggestion but give it a try maybe it will enable people to produce a more civilised debate.

this is something I have problems with myself. I dont fit nicely into either catagory, and so when people ask me whether I am pro-life or pro-choice I can only respond relativly.

 

[FutureIncoming]

I speak out for the injustice against the unborn and therefore against abortion.

So? All this means is that you are exhibiting a prejudiced "pro-justice-for-humans" position. (Okay, I'm assuming you don't speak out for the injustice against the unborn fish eggs in a can of caviar -- and yes, I know that "unhatched" is more accurate than "unborn", but those two words do have some equivalence in meaning.)

As we have discussed elsewhere, your prejudice for humans is based on the totally unproved assumption that human life has objective value. Remember this?

you still have the inherent value as a human being.

Then specify it in detail. And leave the Subjectivity of beneficiaries out of it.

You never bothered to reply to that. But you made the claim, and I'm asking you to support the claim with evidence. Which I have every right to do in a Debate Forum. If you cannot provide the evidence, then you should retract the claim, and accept the logical consequences, such as (1) that human life only has Subjective value, not Objective value, and (2) that unvalued unborn humans don't need even as much justice as caviar.

 

[mikhail]

As ive mentioned before i have never fully come to a conclusion in regard to abortion as im very torn on the issue.

But it seems as though alot of the same people who are completly against abortion are also those who are against free health care. If there was an abortion ban, and girl who would have had an abortion because she lacked the funds to care for it fully and this child becomes ill at three, surely the same people who wanted the abortion ban should be prepared for this child to be payed for from tax money to highest standard.

 

[BodiSatva]

I mean isnt there grey areas between the 2?

Not to most involved, and that is a shame.

We have had this debate many times, and I have found that most people are extremely closed minded and will not yield an inch regardless of common sense. :roll:

 

[blastula]

No offence, but please refer to your above worthless argument.

If you keep insisting that you don't have inherent value as a human being why do you expect me to be bothered to reply to that? You want to be worthless, be worthless and don't expect me to treat you as if you have some worth. If something or someone is worthless, there is nothing of worth to specify let alone in detail. It's worthless and people throw worthless thing in the trash you know. See, how self-defeated you are?

But, action speaks louder than words. If you and you family are trapped in a house fire together with your fish caviar and your tree, do you expect the firemen to save the tree and the caviar first before making any attempt to save you and your family?

If the life of a human being "only has Subjective value" and don't need as much justice as caviar, then why is murder a capital offence and eating or destroying caviar not? If your loved one is murdered, do you not expect the police to investigate the crime and demand that justice be done so that the murderer is convicted and receive just punishment? Or do you simply dismiss the murder of your loved ones as mere equivalent to "much justice as caviar"?

If there is no objective value or objective truth, then why bother to investigate a crime to seek the truth. In anything there is always an object value and objective truth. In a murder case, there is always a true event that occurred. What truly happened is known only to the parties involved in the crime scene. Finger prints, blood and DNA evidence, fibers, etc have objective value and objective truth leading to the event. Just because we may never know the truth of the actual event, does not mean that there is no objective truth and therefore according to your silly notion everything must to be subjective.

I had had enough of your self-proclaimed worthlessness already. And like you said, your premises are subjective and arbitrary and have o inherent objective value. What is valuable is only valuable unto yourself. And what is common sense is common sense only to yourself subjective to your whimsical arbitrary "valuation". I'd be a fool to keep up with your childish foolishness. Please don't contaminate this thread with your self-acknowledged worthless argument.

 

[FallingPianos]

If the life of a human being "only has Subjective value" and don't need as much justice as caviar, then why is murder a capital offence and eating or destroying caviar not?

because everyone is in agreement that the human being is worth more. That does not mean that the worth is objective, just that there is agreement on it.

 

[blastula]

because everyone is in agreement that the human being is worth more. That does not mean that the worth is objective, just that there is agreement on it.

Objective value is independent of conscious awareness. Just because Hitler and his nazi regime all agree that the jews, the disabled, and people of other race other than whites are of no value does not make it so. That is the problem with your erroneous thinking.

Even if there is only one human being in an island, and therefore no question of agreement, the existence of the human being is inherently valuable by virtue of existence. You're confusing inherent value with perceptive value.

 

[FutureIncoming]

{{continued from my following Message}}

If there is no objective value or objective truth, ...

Do not confuse those two separate concepts! A Truth is not in any sense a Valuation. I can see that a particular Objective Valuation would count as one single Truth, roughly equivalent (but superior) to a statement such as, "That piece of bubble gum is on sale for a penny." -- but so far you haven't shown that any such thing as an Objective Valuation exists. Not one single particular Objective Valuation of Worth have you shown to exist.

... then why bother to investigate a crime to seek the truth.

Because Truth can Subjectively be useful and therefore have a valuation assigned to it. Simple. Furthermore, different people can find different uses (or non-uses) for a given Truth, and as a result it can be assigned different Subjective Valuations. That's a known fact. Remember the "magic hexagon"? http://mathworld.wolfram.com/MagicHexagon.html I Subjectively assign it some non-zero value because its existence is a Truth that I can use it as an example of something that the average person, likely including yourself, will probably assign to it Zero Subjective Value, due to its Subjective uselessness to you -- thereby proving that Truths are indeed Subjectively Valued.

In anything there is always an object value ...

You keep saying that but still you have yet to provide any supporting evidence for it, whatsoever!

... and objective truth. In a murder case, there is always a true event that occurred. What truly happened is known only to the parties involved in the crime scene.

AGREED.

Finger prints, blood and DNA evidence, fibers, etc have objective value ...

DISAGREED. They only have Subjective Value, because of what they can be subjectively be used for. Do remember that finger prints, for example, existed for thousands of years (they can sometimes be found on ancient pottery fragments), but only recently, a bit more than a century, have they been anything more than a nusiance to clean off of wares-for-sale. And similar things can be said for other types of modern crime-scene evidence.

... and objective truth leading to the event. Just because we may never know the truth of the actual event, does not mean that there is no objective truth and therefore according to your silly notion everything must to be subjective.

Your twisting of what I wrote elsewhere accomplishes nothing. I have not at all made the silly claim that everything must be subjective. If you choose to claim otherwise, then let's see the evidence! (A quotation anyone can check, in which I made that silly claim.) Meanwhile, Truths remain completely Objective, and completely without Inherent Value. It is not at all silly notion that all Valuations are Subjective, when it is Subjectively-thinking minds that created the abstract concept of Valuations in the first place, and when you consistently fail to provide supporting evidence to the contrary. Just one single counterexample is all you need, of something that has inherent/Objective Value, independent of Subjective usefulness.

I had had enough of your self-proclaimed worthlessness already.

Your twisting of what I wrote elsewhere accomplishes nothing. My opinion that nothing has Objective worth, due to lack of supporting evidence, is not the same thing as an opinion that no valuations exist. I am not a murderer, for example, because of my Subjective valuations of the people around me.

And like you said, your premises are subjective and arbitrary and have o inherent objective value.

Your twisting of what I wrote elsewhere accomplishes nothing. My premises are based on fact -- (your failure (and the failure of other pro-lifers, such as Jerry) to support your claim that things have Objective Value --and therefore my premises are Objective, and so are neither Subjective nor arbitrary. And their lack of Objective Value does not change one whit the factual status of my premises, nor does it change one whit their Subjective Value that I assigned to them by using them in a Debate Forum. The Rules of Debate, in which you chose to participate, require you to seriously consider those premises and my derived argument, no matter how little you Subjectively Value them!

What is valuable is only valuable unto yourself.

OVIOUSLY FALSE. The Truth is that most things have differing Subjective values to different people. Simple. And an obvious reason why we are involved in a Debate Forum about abortion of unborn humans.

And what is common sense is common sense only to yourself ...

What is common sense is that lots of people are superficial, and seldom examine deep questions. Once upon a time it was common sense that the world was flat. Thus we know an Objective Truth, that "common sense" isn't always worth what it says. Therefore, just because something is called "common sense", that does not mean it is either True or sensible. So where is your evidence that something, just one thing, has inherent/Objective Value? I agree that common sense accepts the notion, because it is well-known how Religions have indoctrinated children for millenia with unproved claims, and thus I disagree that common sense is correct to accept the notion that things have Objective Value.

... subjective to your whimsical arbitrary "valuation".

Tsk, tsk, more unproved claims on your part. Almost everything that you have claimed in Msg #7 to have value, I have shown how, using the Objective Fact/Truth of usefulness, it has Subjective Value only, to those that use those things. So in what way am I being arbitrary and whimsical? I have been very consistent!

I'd be a fool to keep up with your childish foolishness.

Tsk, tsk, more unproved claims on your part -- or at least the second one is an uproved claim. Regarding the first one, it looks to me that the more you fail to provide evidence that something has Objective Value, and the more you continue to make that claim, the more you act like a fool.

Please don't contaminate this thread with your self-acknowledged worthless argument.

Tsk, tsk, more unproved claims on your part. In every single Message Thread in an Abortion Debate, if someone claims that human life is inherently valuable, and tries to use that as a reason to oppose abortion, then someone else has the right to request the evidence that supports the claim. That second someone might be me, but it doesn't have to be me. If it becomes an effective way to show just how worthless the pro-lifers' argument really is, by their continued/consistent failure to present the requested evidence, then I fully expect other pro-choicers to eventually be making that request, also. I am simply showing how it can be done, along with showing why civilization doesn't have to collapse, just because nobody will any longer have any basis to claim inherent superiority over someone else. (That is, for example, despite noble claims for more than 200 years that "all men are created equal", how many light-skinned bigots still think they are superior to dark-skinned people? After showing the bigots that they actually are inherently worthless, and their bigotry counts against them enough to give them negative Subjective value(!), maybe matters will improve!)

 

[FutureIncoming]

As we have discussed elsewhere, your prejudice for humans is based on the totally unproved assumption that human life has objective value. {{snip}} ... you made the claim, and I'm asking you to support the claim with evidence.

If you keep insisting that you don't have inherent value as a human being ...

Your twisting of what I wrote in #4 accomplishes nothing. You are the one making a positive statement, insisting that you do have inherent value, and anyone here, not just I, has the right to ask for the supporting evidence. When will you stop dodging the Request?

...why do you expect me to be bothered to reply to that?

It is normal in a Debate Forum for those who make positive statements to be prepared to support those statements with factual data, when it is requested. If you are participating in a Debate, in a Debate Forum, then you should provide the requested data. If you are not, then why are you here? You could be evicted (as others have), for worthless blathering/trolling instead of actually Debating.

You want to be worthless, be worthless and don't expect me to treat you as if you have some worth.

Obviously you still fail to understand the difference between Subjective and Objective valuations. Remember that if you choose to Subjectively value me less than I Subjectively value myself, I can equally choose to Subjectively value you less than you Subjectively value yourself. Which therefore is reason for us to choose some equal Subjective valuation, regardless of its magnitude.

If something or someone is worthless, there is nothing of worth to specify let alone in detail.

Yet you have declared that some humans do have inherent worth, and therefore you should be able to specify the details of that worth. Not to mention that you are still ignoring the fact that because "there is no accounting for taste" it is perfectly possible for something having zero Objective value to be assigned by someone a high Subjective value. Consider the time, effort, and money that physicists spend trying to perfectly evacuate all the gas from some container, in which they would conduct an experiment. To them, a volume of vacuum, a volume of nothing, has value! (And, of course, that valuation is purely Subjective to those physicists....)

It's worthless and people throw worthless thing in the trash you know.

And other people dumpster-dive and sell the results in flea markets. You are merely continuing to describe Subjective Valuations, not Objective Valuations.

See, how self-defeated you are?

I'm not self-defeated at all. And you still have not offered any rationale by which a human, much less anything else, can be Objectively declared to have value.

But, action speaks louder than words. If you and you family are trapped in a house fire together with your fish caviar and your tree, do you expect the firemen to save the tree and the caviar first before making any attempt to save you and your family?

That doesn't prove Objective Worth, either. Subjective Valuations can explain those choices perfectly. Ideally, all persons should have equal Subjective Value, and this can usually be greater than the Subjective values assigned to all non-persons, for various reasons that make Subjective sense. It would be stupid, however, to assume that those valuations will remain the best choices in all possible circumstances. If you are on a fixed-size multi-generation spaceship, and all food and oxygen is generated by plants, do you think it will be acceptable to breed more humans than those plants can provide food and oxygen for? The "cusp scenario" that I described in that other Message Thread is just one way in which one excess human birth will result in some other human's death, as an inevitable consequence of the premature death of an intermediate life-form "used-up" to support that newborn -- and so I asked the question:

...is abortion an OK way to ensure human life does not exceed its demands upon that other life form?

--And you have yet to answer that question. You merely spouted worthless blather about how humans will never be in that situation, without once noticing that Island Earth is a fixed-sized multigenerational spaceship, and all food and oxygen used by humans is fundamentally dependent upon plants.

(2) that unvalued unborn humans don't need even as much justice as caviar.

If the life of a human being "only has Subjective value" and don't need as much justice as caviar, then why is murder a capital offence and eating or destroying caviar not?

Your twisting of what I wrote in #4 accomplishes nothing. Except, eventually, it gets the Moderators mad at you. The fact is, killing an unvalued unborn human life is neither murder nor a capital offense. And if you continue to fail to provide any factual evidence of Objective value, not Subjective value, then why should killing an unvalued unborn human life ever be anything other than not-murder? Meanwhile, born humans can continue to Subjectively value each other equally, with capital-punishment-of-murder being one inducement (if you murder because you valued some other person at Zero, then Society uses the Golden Rule to value you at Zero, and dishes out capital punishment). Also, one simplistic defintion of nonpersons are those totally incapable of making any Subjective Valuations, including of themselves. A rock is a nonperson. So is a tree. And so is an unborn human. (And the average newborn is quickly able to express an opinion, long and loudly, of mistreatment, so that might be considered evidence for self-valuation and personhood.)

If your loved one is murdered, do you not expect the police to investigate the crime and demand that justice be done so that the murderer is convicted and receive just punishment? Or do you simply dismiss the murder of your loved ones as mere equivalent to "much justice as caviar"?

I'm quite sure that Subjective Valuations will determine the expectations that follow. In my own case, I recognize that by definition a loved one is Subjectively highly valued, and so I would expect an investigation. But a female "gold-digger" stereotype whose husband dies in a genuine accident is less likely to look for suspicious causes of that accident than a police detective, for example. And if the accident was not genuine, I'd half-expect the gold-digger to try to side-track or otherwise influence the detective's investigation! (Only half-an-expectation because of the possibility that the husband had multiple enemies independently trying to kill him.)

{{continued in my previous Message}}

 

[FutureIncoming]

everyone is in agreement that the human being is worth more. That does not mean that the worth is objective, just that there is agreement on it.

Objective value is independent of conscious awareness.

SOMEWHAT AGREED. If something existed that had Objective Value, then what you wrote would be a true statement. However, you are faced with a contradiction, as I explain in detail toward the end of this Message.

Just because Hitler and his nazi regime all agree that the jews, the disabled, and people of other race other than whites are of no value does not make it so.

Nor does it mean they were wrong, Objectively speaking. The only thing it means is that Hitler and Nazis Subjectively assigned various people zero value --and in response many other people Subjectively assigned Hitler and Nazis zero value. They reaped what they sowed, in perfect accordance with the Golden Rule. Which is the main reason why it would behoove anyone thinking to disagree with some Generally Accepted Subjective Valuation of Persons, to think twice, and then think about it a few times more, before proceeding.

That is the problem with your erroneous thinking.

Nope, the problem with erroneous thinking is all yours. Where is the Objective Evidence for an Objective valuation of anything, to say nothing of humans? Your continued making of an unsupported claim, that Objective Valuations exist, is actually the Objective evidence that your thinking is erroneous.

Even if there is only one human being in an island, and therefore no question of agreement, the existence of the human being is inherently valuable by virtue of existence.

And now you are confusing "existence" with "value", without even trying to explain the basis for such a claim. Please note this Objective Fact: Valuations are abstract, not physical. Therefore a valuation is not a physical property of something that exists. As further evidence, do recall that I just recently explained how a volume of nothing can be assigned Subjective value. Only an abstract concept can sensibly be connected to Nothing. And only minds, persons, deal with abstractions. Which therefore makes all valutions dependent upon the choices made by minds, Subjective, that is. This is the fundamental contradiction in claiming Objective Value exists. So, if you continue to claim that existence is automatically connected to value, you need to (1) find a flaw in the immediately-preceding argument, and (2) explain the rationale of your argument in detail. Thanks!

You're confusing inherent value with perceptive value.

"Perceptive value" is, of course, the same thing as Subjective Value. And since so far you have still failed to show that inherent value exists/isn't-a-self-contradiction, you are mistaken in claiming that star2589 was confused.

 

[BodiSatva]

Seriously! :shock:

Can you two go down to Lovers Quarrel with this Stupid Debate? :roll:

It is getting beyond dumb and it is going over into a few threads.

Thanks

 

[FallingPianos]

Objective value is independent of conscious awareness. Just because Hitler and his nazi regime all agree that the jews, the disabled, and people of other race other than whites are of no value does not make it so. That is the problem with your erroneous thinking.

in either case, objective value is a useless concept because there is no way of knowing what it actually is.

 

[FutureIncoming]

...this Stupid Debate? It is getting beyond dumb ...

Really? The only thing that's wrong is that I have made a perfectly-allowed Request in a Debate Forum, which folks like blastula and Jerry have been avoiding answering, despite the Rules. If they had simply provided the requested data weeks ago, data that supports opinions they have expressed, or had admitted that they cannot provide the data (and that therefore, logically, their unsupported opinions must be invalid), the discussion of that one single/little topic would never have dragged on like it has. Perhaps you could encourage them to provide the data? (Perhaps you agree with their opinions, and could provide the data yourself???)

 

[blastula]

in either case, objective value is a useless concept because there is no way of knowing what it actually is.

It may be useless to you, but it is just as useful as gravity and would not disappear or lessened in value despite your denial.

You two need to let this topic rest in peace because it had been harshed and reharsed without concession. If you both truly believe that there is no objective value and no objective truth, then why try relentlessly and so hard to prove your point? And why do you expect to be correct and why do you insist your argument has objective value and objective truth? If there is no objective value and no objective truth, then what esle can it be if not subjective? If all are subjective, what is true for you is only true for you. Why behaving like you have the objective value and objective truth in your argument? So, it doesn't make sense, and run contrary to your own principle, that I should provide data or evidence that you alone would agree with. Afterall, if there is no objective value and no objective truth, what is the use of data and evidence? I had provided you with plenty of data and evidence, you just refused to acknowledge them because you operate in a subjective, whimsical and arbitrary principle. You didn't even answered most of my questions, and try to turn around and said I didn't answer yours.

I guess if your house is on fire, you are expecting the firefighters to gather in front of your house to come into a subjective agreement as to who or what has value? Are you expecting that the possibility that they may decide the tree and caviar have more value than your life or your loved one's lives? Afterall, caviar is expensive you know, and they don't get anything in return for saving you or your family. See how ridiculous your arguments are?

Like I said already, please stop your nonsense. Since you said you have no inherent value, Whatever you try to patch up on your dificiencies, it's going to be more nonsense. So, give this a rest and stop contaminating this thread with more of your nonsense.

 

[BodiSatva]

FutureIncoming

I do not care enough about that debate to engage in it at this point, but I am tired of seeing it all over the place. If they are evading the issue according to the rules, then you won. Really. Just declare it so and ignore them adn understand that they are not worth any more of your time on that issue. You win. Done.

I DECLARE FUTUREINCOMING THE WINNER BY DEFAULT!

Especially if this is the arguements that you have been facing...

Blastula
Afterall, caviar is expensive you know, and they don't get anything in return for saving you or your family. See how ridiculous your arguments are?

What return do the firemen get if they save the caviar? To eat it? It is gone. Bye Bye return...fleeting. They get nothing in return for saving the people? Really? What about getting paid...if they chose caviar all of the time they would be out of a job...it is almost a paradox world that you have created...for there never would have been firemen in the first place if this is the value that they had...people would never have created such a department. So they get paid...they get to feed their families and wear really heavy gear and look super macho with their axes.

None of you are getting that it is all perception and that no two people have the same perception ABOUT ANYTHING. Didn't you see the Sixth Sense? There is such a thing as "I see dead people" value and truth. There are lots of truths out there.

 

[Jerry]

Are the words pro life and pro choice stopping a realistic debate on abortion i mean its an arguement in itself.Obvously everyone now automatically thinks of abortion when these words crop up but if you didnt apply them to abortion im sure people would say they supported both.

I mean how can you start a realistic debate when its, are you pro life? and as soon as you disagree its so your pro death?

you dont believe in choice?

I mean isnt there grey areas between the 2?

Would there be a more realistic debate if people didnt have these two camps that basically are meaningless terms?

I suggest debating the subject without using these words i know you proberly think this is just a stupid suggestion but give it a try maybe it will enable people to produce a more civilised debate.

Myself: I'm "anti-abortion", not pro-life nor pro-choice.

When I was 16 I was pro-death. No, by "pro-death" I do not mean "pro-choice". A pro-death individual believes in abortion in all occurrences of pregnancy where the mother has not satisfied reproductive conditions imposed upon her by the state.

Examples of such conditions mite be: Possession of a collage degree, $10,000 in savings, a house, 5 years in a career, married for at least 3-5 years, good physical and mental health, minimum age of 26, etc.

I later realized that it is not the state's place to impose such requirements on people, that political entities I may object to could impose reproductive conditions that I would be severely opposed to, and that smaller government in general is a very good thing.

As an anit-abortionist I know that there are different situations which warrant an abortion, and that non of those situations include the mother simply not wanting to be pregnant because it's disruptive to her plans, in inconvenient or socially embarrassing.

I have no problem with the M.A.P. being used within 3-5 days of a rape; I have no problem with a first trimester abortion if the pregnancy would place the mothers general health in severe jeopardy; and similar.

Pro-choice's current abuse of Roe-V-Wade is disgusting, as it dehumanizes both the unborn child and the sanctity of women.

I suppose that the biggest difference between pro-life and anti-abortion is that an anti-abortionist can also be in favored of the death penalty, where as a pro-lifer must be against the death penalty. An anti-abortionist can support the execution of a wanted terrorist in Iraq with 2 500 lbd. bombs. A pro-lifer must mourn that terrorist's life being ended.

 

[Jerry]

As ive mentioned before i have never fully come to a conclusion in regard to abortion as im very torn on the issue.

But it seems as though alot of the same people who are completly against abortion are also those who are against free health care. If there was an abortion ban, and girl who would have had an abortion because she lacked the funds to care for it fully and this child becomes ill at three, surely the same people who wanted the abortion ban should be prepared for this child to be payed for from tax money to highest standard.

A "girl" should place said child up for adoption to a loving, committed, stable, mom and dad home. In such a home, the child will not need the government to bail her out.

A "girl" should not keep a child, ever. She herself is a child, and thus is completely incapable of providing her child a loving, committed, stable, mom and dad home.

Only men and women can do that.....not boys and girls.

 

[FutureIncoming]

If they are evading the issue according to the rules, then you won. Really. Just declare it so and ignore them adn understand that they are not worth any more of your time on that issue.

I could wish it was that easy. But that will not stop them from continuing to claim that human life has inherent value and therefore abortion should be prohibited. Now, perhaps, if the Moderators stepped in to declare that such statement was verboten, on the basis of failure to support the claim that human life (or anything else) has inherent value, then, Okay! Except that Jerry is (or has been) one of the moderators, and is one of those making the unsupported claim....

 

[BodiSatva]

Isn't that free speech though...

We had chesswarsnow making up facts on the spot.
Just ignore them and let others make up their own mind regarding these guys.

 

[Jerry]

Seriously! :shock:

Can you two go down to Lovers Quarrel with this Stupid Debate? :roll:

It is getting beyond dumb and it is going over into a few threads.

Thanks

I agree, BodiSatva.
Future is mad because I regected his authority to make any argument, in any way, to any degree, based on his eventual confession that he has no objective value or worth.

That conversation does belong in the basement now.....and I would love to see how his honer Warden teacher would handle Future.

I for one will not participate in it. I like the topic of this thread.

 

[Jerry]

.....Now, perhaps, if the Moderators stepped in to declare that such statement was verboten, on the basis of failure to support the claim that human life (or anything else) has inherent value, then, Okay! Except that Jerry is (or has been) one of the moderators, and is one of those making the unsupported claim....

I am not, nor have I ever been, a moderator at DP.
I'm not even available for the job.

 

[FallingPianos]

It may be useless to you, but it is just as useful as gravity and would not disappear or lessened in value despite your denial.

the comparison of human worth and gravity is invalid. though I suppose we can never truly understand what gravity is or where it came from, we can measure its effects very accuratly and make predictions based on it. we at least know that it exists.

I'm not saying that an objective value doesnt exist. I'm saying that the concept is useless in this matter, because there is no way of knowing what it is if it does exist. you say there is an objective value to a human fetus, and futureincoming says there is not - that it is essentially zero, but neither of you can prove your claim, so what use it is?

 

[FutureIncoming]

Except that Jerry is (or has been) one of the moderators,

I am not, nor have I ever been, a moderator at DP.

I apologize; obviously I misremembered a Message I saw somewhere, somebody announcing he was a moderator now.

Future is mad because I regected his authority to make any argument, in any way, to any degree, based on his eventual confession that he has no objective value or worth.

Hmm.... I shall now formally Request the explanation of the logic for reaching that conclusion. How does person equate to argument? Please note that that Request does not qualify as "any argument, in any way, to any degree". Thanks!

Next, I am not angry/mad. You have reached an erroneous conclusion from the data available to you. Just like you have assumed you have objective worth, apparently with no supporting evidence whatsoever (which is why I labelled your position "prejudiced").

Next, my Request, that you show me that you do have supporting evidence for your opinion, also does not count as "any argument, in any way, to any degree". It is simply a Request that I have a right to ask in this Debate Forum, because you made a positive statement.

Eventually, you will either Answer those Requests, or you will Answer to the moderators of this Debate Forum, for failing to abide by its Rules. And that's an argument you cannot ignore, no matter how Objectively worthless I am!