Total posts: 14,582
Posted in:
-->
@Benjamin
Conclusion: humans have human rights - no human can be killed and the action called morally just. (the state is ignored for now).
Why?
Why ignore the state?
Doesn't your entire argument revolve around a very real world where no human ever kills another human?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
But God isn't your parent. You aren't His child.
Great point.
Compared to "YHWH" we're more like worms.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
What does your god want me to do?I'm not His prophet. But why would He want you to do anything?
Why on earth do you keep talking about it then?
It seems like you want me to follow some set of rules.
Fine, what rules?
Oh, these rules in an old book that don't make any sense.
Wait, you say they make sense if you interpret them correctly?
Please interpret them correctly for me.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Reece101
Rights to education/work and away from slavery/torture applies more so to a woman that’s forced to carry and give birth, than to fetuses or embryos that aren’t developed/conscious.
Great point.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@whiteflame
The difficulty for them is in arguing where that stops.
I agree.
Linking DNA and "human rights" seems to be a double-edged-sword.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Benjamin
That concept only applies when you have agreed to some terms - like driving a car or taking an important job.
Why does "criminal negligence" NOT apply to a miscarriage?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Benjamin
Well, miscarriage is not intentional and thus cannot be classified as immoral.You miss my point. We do not call all accidental deaths immoral!
Are you familiar with the concept of, "criminal negligence"?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@whiteflame
You’re drawing a line (fusion) and saying that crossing that line turns one into a human.
I like where you're going with this.
Mice and men share about 97.5 per cent of their working DNA, just one per cent less than chimps and humans. The new estimate is based on the comparison of mouse chromosome 16 with human DNA. [LINK]
Does this mean that mice have 97.5% human rights?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Reece101
He’s saying that pregnant women will be surveilled too incase they try anything.
Women could get up to 30 years in prison for having a miscarriage under Georgia's harsh new abortion law
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Benjamin
Maybe turning it into a medical center for HEALTH would be an idea?
Abortions accounted for 3 percent of the nearly 10.6 million total services provided by Planned Parenthood clinics in 2013, according to its annual report.
Some services it provided in addition to abortions were:
- 4.5 million tests and treatment for sexually transmitted infections
- 3.6 million contraception related services
- 935,573 cancer screenings including breast exams and Pap tests
- 1.1 million pregnancy tests and prenatal services
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Benjamin
But the doctor will not be permitted to perform an abortion,
Doesn't this "rule" violate medical privacy laws?
Are politicians qualified to tell doctors how to do their jobs?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Benjamin
IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO VALUE EVERY HUMAN ON THE PLANET WITH EQUAL FEROCITY.It's possible to avoid murdering ANYONE - especially for society at large.
Ok, think about this,
If you purchased a product that was made by a company that knowingly worked with suppliers that murdered union organizers, are you maybe just a little bit guilty of murder?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Benjamin
Again, if the baby infringes her sovereignty it must get a fair trial before execution.
Does a comatose invalid get a "fair trial" before their life support is cut?
In the United States, the withholding and withdrawal of life support is legally justified primarily by the principles of informed consent and informed refusal, both of which have strong roots in the common law. The principles hold that treatment may not be initiated without the approval of patients or their surrogates excepting in emergency situations, and that patients or surrogates may refuse any or all therapies. The application of these principles to the care of the critically ill began in the Quinlan case (6), in which the New Jersey Supreme Court held that a patient had the right to refuse mechanical ventilation, and that, because she was vegetative and could not exercise that right directly, her parents could act as surrogates for her. The California Court of Appeals took a similar approach in the Barber case (7), in which it held that physicians charged with murder had not committed an unlawful act when, with permission from a patient's family, they removed nutrition and hydration from a comatose patient. [**]
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Benjamin
We just need to prohibit abortion - women cannot perform them themselves
There is no shortage of methods a woman can use to end a pregnancy without the assistance of a doctor.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Benjamin
Claiming otherwise would be to discriminate between humans on the basis of age
IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO VALUE EVERY HUMAN ON THE PLANET WITH EQUAL FEROCITY.
Why can't the smartest people solve the problems we all agree on?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Benjamin
I think that prohibiting abortion, from a human rights standpoint, is much more moral than any other law
The key "problem" here is ENFORCEMENT.
More specifically, bodily sovereignty and personal privacy.
I actually agree with you that miscarriage and abortion are "morally repulsive".
I'm just not sure how I can accuse my neighbor of "murder" and or "manslaughter" without also committing a gross invasion of their personal privacy.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@fauxlaw
the OVUM is undeniably part of the woman's body.Undeniable, but only up to the point of conception when, indeed, a completely separate and distinct individual is realized.
Who "owns" the spermatozoon?
It seems fair to rule that the woman who possesses it also owns it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@fauxlaw
When science develops [it will] a sustainable artificial womb, the zygote can be extracted [effectively "birth"] and thus inheriting its constitutional rights.
ECTOGENESIS FTW!
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@MisterChris
This just isn't the case. There's an element of personal discretion inevitable to the concept of moderation, but the voting standards are almost always what we go by.
It is somewhat disheartening to spend over three hours combing through a debate, point by point, and then have my vote removed because I "failed to address the key arguments" (which are 100% left to the imagination) and my deductions for "conduct" are thrown out because "mild insults" are apparently not considered "ad hominem attacks" by the moderator in question and my references for "logical fallacies" are considered "outside information".
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Barney
If someone starts a debate: "Assuming morality is incompatible with objectivity, then morality is incompatible with objectivity." That would be a time this rule would come into play.
I appreciate your attempt at clarification.
The only debates I've ever participated in are TAUTOLOGICAL.
I guess (IFF) there's no general consensus on the definitions of "objectivity" and "morality" (THEN) there's no general consensus on their TAUTOLOGICAL incompatibility.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@fauxlaw
Who will stop Trump from creating his own online network, along with his own service provider?
I'm ordering pop-corn.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Soluminsanis
I wouldn't say God acts by necessity or that His nature compels Him to perform certain acts. I would say though that God cannot act against His nature
That seems to be a distinction without a difference.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tradesecret
Every True Christian is either expressly a Calvinist or is a closet Calvinist. They are but they just don't know it yet.
Nice.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Barney
An Ad Hominem is an attack against the person, instead of the actual argument they make.
I agree.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Barney
Truisms and TautologyThe setup for a debate need not be wholly fair, but there should be grounds for either side to argue. A debate such as “the sun is hot”' are so overwhelmingly in favor of one side, that the other side is best off kritiking the setup and asking for voters to disregard the proofs. This makes it a time of voter discretion if the setup was cheating or not, so moderation is unlikely to intervene.
Would this count against a resolution of "THE DEFINITION OF MORALITY IS INCOMPATIBLE WITH THE DEFINTION OF OBJECTIVITY"?
Or, "MORALITY IS NOT OBJECTIVE"?
The is–ought problem, as articulated by the Scottish philosopher and historian David Hume, arises when a writer makes claims about what ought to be that are based solely on statements about what is. Hume found that there seems to be a significant difference between positive statements (about what is) and prescriptive or normative statements (about what ought to be), and that it is not obvious how one can coherently move from descriptive statements to prescriptive ones. Hume's law or Hume's guillotine[1] is the thesis that, if a reasoner only has access to non-moral and non-evaluative factual premises, the reasoner cannot logically infer the truth of moral statements.[2]
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Theweakeredge
the more power you have the more responsibility you have.
Well stated.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
When it comes to voting on debates, policy doesn't really matter, enforcement does.Whatever policy is written won't change much about the culture of junk-filled RFDs. Especially not when we get punished for reporting and have flagging option deleted from our accounts, rather than asking us why we reported them. There is not much to gain from adding more jargon into the CoC, the problem lies in who is in charge of enforcement.
Ultimately it's still a "popularity contest" with the mods deciding on the fly what they personally consider a passable RFD.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Barney
Fragrant misbehavior in the comment section,
Flagrant
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
Is the following statement "fact" or "opinion"?
"Your DebateArt.com user-icon is 2 centimeters square on my computer screen."
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Benjamin
it's obvious that no word can describe him coherently, concisely, and consistently.
UNKNOWABLE AND INDESCRIBABLE.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Theweakeredge
"oh but humans caused that" does not mean that a powerful being would not be morally obligated to help.
In the same way a human would be expected to throw a rope to someone who was drowning.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Benjamin
The Bible uses human terms to describe their creator. No matter how hard they try that would always be the case.
SO, "YHWH" IS "INDESCRIBABLE".
Also, remember that everything that happens is attributed to God - even the regular laws of physics.
HUMANS ARE "GOD PUPPETS".
The correct stance to take would be that 1) We cannot understand God or 2) God has hidden his true motivations
BINGO.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
Objective means bias free, not emotion free.
Are you familiar with "sample bias"?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
God's morality then, is His belief about what is wrong and what is right when it comes to our behavior.
How do you know "the mind of god"?
More specifically,
What does your god want me to do?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Benjamin
but I (and fauxlaw) have thoroughly dismantled every argument supporting abortion.
You've certainly done a fine job of convincing yourselves.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Benjamin
Police routinely infringe human rights.So we should legalize all crimes?
Of course not. Nobody ever suggested "legalize all crimes".
Don't you think it's possible to have effective law enforcement without violating human rights?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Benjamin
The "law is on my side" argument is not actually an argument at all.
The "law is NOT on my side" argument is not actually an argument at all.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Benjamin
By locking up another human you infringe human rights. Does that mean that police infringe human rights if fighting crime?
Police routinely infringe human rights.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@fauxlaw
So, as long as the law is undecided and conflicted, you have no leg to stand on.
Doesn't that statement obviously cut both ways?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@fauxlaw
The fetus is part of the woman's body because the OVUM is undeniably part of the woman's body.
The female gamete or ovum which, when fertilized by a spermatozoon, can give rise to a new individual. The egg is a very large cell, compared with other body cells, and contains only 23 chromosomes, half the normal number (haploid). Like most other cells ova contain many mitochondria each containing many copies of mitochondrial DNA. [**]
In the same way that the parents and or legal guardians of someone in a coma can make life and death decisions for the unconscious individual, the parents and or legal guardians of someone in utero can make life and death decisions for the unconscious individual.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
We already live in societies where human rights are selectively applied, in order to to suit the needs and demands of societies.
Well stated.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@FLRW
So, don't all miscarried or aborted fetuses go to Heaven?Wouldn't that be better than the 3 million children that suffered from dying of starvation last year?
Good point.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Benjamin
Human rights are rights inherent to all human beings, regardless of race, sex, nationality, ethnicity, language, religion, or any other status. Human rights include the right to life and liberty, freedom from slavery and torture, freedom of opinion and expression, the right to work and education, and many more. Everyone is entitled to these rights, without discrimination.[https://www.un.org/en/sections/issues-depth/human-rights/]
You seem to have overlooked bodily sovereignty and personal privacy.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Reece101
How would you enforce anti-abortionism without infringing on human-rights?
Well stated.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Benjamin
Free will is a necessity for responsibility.
"Free-Will" is incompatible with an "omnipotent" and "omniscient" "creator".
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
The statement is still either true or false. Our "knowing" has no bearing on reality. That is one of the uses of logic, to find out what is real even when we cannot perceive it.
UNVERIFIABLE "FACT" IS INDISTINGUISHABLE FROM OPINION.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@fauxlaw
the difference between an ABSTRACT noun and a CONCRETE noun?I have a PhD in English Lit
Well, this should be easy for you.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
God's emotional state is irrelevant. Objective does not mean, "emotion-free".
ob·jec·tive | \ əb-ˈjek-tiv , äb- \
Definition of objective
(Entry 1 of 2)
(Entry 1 of 2)
1a: expressing or dealing with facts or conditions as perceived without distortion by personal feelings, prejudices, or interpretations [LINK]
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
Please explain to me what "theoretical" "thing" meets your qualification of "not sourced from the mind OF MAN"?The concept of God's morality.
Please explain, "The concept of God's morality".
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Benjamin
The only type of theism that would actually undermine your moral beliefs would be theistic determinism: the idea that god controls all human action.
Strict determinism is perfectly compatible with "atheist" "moral beliefs".
Created: