Total posts: 5,890
-->
@Greyparrot
Do you really think the changes many Republicans propose to make elections more secure will fundamentally change the country?What is your worst case prediction?
I would hardly call it a prediction, they've been pretty transparent about it. If these crackpots win and the democratic candidate wins the electoral college in 2024 they will simply claim, with no evidence of course, that it was due to fraud and not certify the election in their state. They will instead declare it the obligation of the state legislature to step in and settle the "dispute" by deciding who gets the states electoral college points.
In other words, to hell with what the voters say, we the politicians get to pick the next president.
This isn't some big secret, these candidates are pretty much building their political futures on this hill. It's also nothing new, it's straight out of the fascist's playbook.
It's the exact same strategy Trump was trying to work in 2020, but it failed because once upon a time we used to agree that the person who gets the most votes wins. Since then Trump's disdain for democracy has corrupted the brains of the political right and now everyone suddenly became conspiracy theorists. Like I've always said, corrupting the minds of half the country has always been his most impressive accomplishment.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
We're talking about the court of public opinion. That's where the people use their common sense to decide for themselves what they find reasonable to believe. You have no issue with this anytime we're talking about Joe Biden, why is it such a problem for you to apply actual thought to Trump?
Created:
Posted in:
27 pages in and I have yet to hear a single Trump supporter give their opinion about what they think the evidence presented in these hearings show. Instead it's been deflection to the democrats, ratings, inflation, gas, etc.
I wonder why?
Created:
-->
@ILikePie5
Fr, imma ask Dems how they feel about getting Kari Lake elected lol
Most Dems are not pleased with the fact that various democratic campaigns decided to risk our democracy for the sake of winning their seats, but what's frankly stupid is to pretend those Dems are the problem and not the idiots voting for them and republican politicians supporting them.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
Because lawmakers cannot legislate "quietly and discreetly" into the law, so discretion buy both arresting officers and judges is necessary.
Created:
-->
@ILikePie5
Cause everyone wrote them off, and to an extent are still writing them off
Right.
So watching some of the biggest crackpots we've ever seen run for office win governorships is funny cause you know... Own the libs.
Not like I expected you're priorities to be anything else so...
Created:
-->
@Stephen
Yes Double_R, this is right out of the Reverend tradsecret textbook of denial and deceit. And you can expect this kind of deviousness from sidewalker in the future.
I didn't think he was capable of surprising with how dishonest he is until his last reply. This is absolutely amazing.
Created:
Sidewalker: Almost all adult believers are conceiving of God to be transcendent, this idea of it being a matter of faith and transcendence is not really a secret, Atheists who pretend they don’t know that are either completely uninformed about the subject matter, or have an agenda and this disingenuous misconception is nothing but a tactic.Double_R: This is why the burden of proof is on you to provide evidence for it, because if you want the conversation to be about the god you believe in then you need to propose it first. And the burden is on the person who makes the claim.I very carefully explained that Belief in God is a matter of faith, and you insist that “This is why the burden of proof is on you”, why do you now say you have never claimed “faith in God carries the burden of proof”, that is clearly a lie.
So let's start by understanding the conversation that actually took place.
The link you provided here was not to my post, it was to your post where you quoted something I said to someone else.
Here is my original post:
Post# 145I did, but then I went on to explain how this shows us that refuting god's existence requires us to start with a clearly defined example, and since everyone will define him differently there is no way any one person can conceive of let alone take a position on the existence of every god proposed.The point here is twofold; first it explains what atheists are mostly talking about when they say god is not real. That is, they're talking about whatever they are conceiving him to be, not necessarily what you are. This is why the burden of proof is on you to provide evidence for it, because if you want the conversation to be about the god you believe in then you need to propose it first. And the burden is on the person who makes the claim.It also explains why atheism should not be defined as the belief that God doesn't exist, because no one who holds such a belief could possibly do so while taking into account every god concept. Lack of belief is far more rational and accurate understanding of the position, because that is the one thing every atheist has in common.
This post was in response to Ehyeh's post 143. The topic of conservation was about whether claims that god does not exist can be substantiated and how that plays into the definition of atheism.
So in this one post you managed to take a 3 paragraph reply to someone else, cut out the first and third paragraph, then cut out the first half of the remaining paragraph and post it under your words to make it look like I was responding to you when I wasn't.
But it gets so much worse.
Then you highlight the key words in your post to emphasize how my words should be interpreted, even though you photoshopped my words in from a conversation that had nothing to do with you.
And then you ignore the fact that even in the half paragraph that you surgically edited so you could take out of context, I still explain clearly that I'm talking about those who *make the claim* that a God exists, not those who merely have faith.
And ironically, all of this in an attempt to claim I'm the one lying here about what had been said in this thread.
The dishonesty is beyond parody at this point. I do hope for your sake that you are just trolling because of not I truly feel bad for you.
Created:
-->
@Public-Choice
Why bicker about my studies then if you don't want to debate this?
Hence why I used the term "all out". I'm not going to pull up, read, and then comment on article after article after article. If you want to debate the issue you'll have to provide you're own arguments.
The only "evidence" we are therefore left with is asserting them as the cause of something elseWhat else saw the various things mentioned?
Don't understand the question. "Saw" implies sight, which implies a person, so the question should be "who else", but then that really makes no sense. Please clarify.
Created:
-->
@Shila
How can you respond to his first point when you admitted you don't know what a 3rd dimension is,Because I don't need to. Until you can demonstrate that such dimension exists, it has no place in a conversion about what is responsible for fluctuations in the weight of human bodiesBut you said you focused on that specific one.See your post:
I don't think you're reading my replies.
You asked me how I can respond to the article without knowing what a third dimension is. I replied that I don't need to know what it is in order to comment on the phenomenon the article sought to explain. What does me focusing on that specific one have to do with anything?
Created:
-->
@ILikePie5
Gonna be funny whenKari Lake is the GovernorBlake Masters is a SenatorMark Finchem is the Secretary of StateAbraham Hamadeh is the Attorney General
Why?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@bibliobibulimaniac
I don't really see a difference. Whether they have managed to convince themselves that their wrongdoings are actually good, or whether they have essentially given up on worrying about doing good, both groups gave up on bringing actual good to the world and are just doing what allows them feel good about themselves.
Created:
-->
@Shila
Yes, we know. Why do you keep posting this? I already explained to you, literally sentence by sentence, what this means and how it shows that your and Sidewalker's claims about what I said are full of shit.
Created:
-->
@Shila
How can you respond to his first point when you admitted you don't know what a 3rd dimension is,
Because I don't need to. Until you can demonstrate that such dimension exists, it has no place in a conversion about what is responsible for fluctuations in the weight of human bodies.
Created:
-->
@Shila
Now you are admitting they were all part of your exchanges with Tarik.So why were you denying they were to Sidewalker?
Admitting? No, I'm educating you as to what was actually said and the context it was said in. That's kind of important to understand before you accuse someone of being dishonest.
Created:
-->
@Public-Choice
Well this comes down to a difference in definitions. I thought by physical you meant exists in the 3rd dimension. If you just mean exists then yeah it has weight I'm sure.
Something either exists or it does not exist. I don't know what a 3rd dimension is, but at least we seem to understand what we're talking about now, so that's good I guess.
You completely ignored the other links in their entirety, opting instead to just focus on one.
I focused on that one because it was the first one you listed. I had no intention on responding to all of them individually because I'm really not interested in getting into an all out "scientific" debate over whether souls exist so I'm just going to respond with a simple generic rebuttal:
The problem with the soul debate is that we're talking about something that is undefined and not observable or measurable. The only "evidence" we are therefore left with is asserting them as the cause of something else, but that fails logically. Things that do not exist cannot be asserted as the cause of something else, so to assert something as a cause you need to first demonstrate that it exists. You're putting the cart before the horse.
Created:
-->
@Shila
My god dude. Learn. To. Read.
"Asserting God as the standard for morality"
This was the former - a clarification of what Tarik and I was actually discussing.
"not ..."
This is the negation, as in what follows the "not" is something Tarik and I were not discussing.
"asserting God as an existent being"
This is the thing Tarik and I were not discussing. It also came second in that sentence, making it "the latter".
So when I said the latter was a factual claim which shoulders a burden of proof, I am very clearly saying that asserting God as an existent being carries with it, a burden of proof.
Created:
-->
@Sidewalker
This is the exchange you are being dishonest about:If, as you claim, asserting God is not a truth statement, it's a subjectrive choice, then why do you throw a tantum and start screaming demands for burden of proof anytime someone asserts belief in God.The latter is a factual claim and therefore one which, if you believe in basic principals of logic, shoulder a burden of proof
WTF?
That exchange didn’t happen. I just posted the full exchange and showed how the parts of it you conveniently left out were crucial to understanding what I was talking about.
You know damn well I can go find a half dozen more instances where you asserted that Faith in God shoulders a burden of proof just in conversations with me. It's a primary axiom of your faith, and it's why you made up your pretend definition of atheist, you claim atheism isn't a belief so it doesn't have the BOP, only people who have faith in God carry the BOP, you are astoundingly dishonest.
Says the guy selectively editing our exchanges and then re-posting them even after being shown how blatantly dishonest they were.
I’ve never asserted mere faith as shouldering a burden of proof, I’ve even recently commented on this forum that faith alone does not carry a burden of proof. Three problem here is not that I'm dishonest, it's that you do not read what others write with any intention of understanding it.
unless you want to formally debate it that is, if you have the unmitigated gall to bald face lie about it in a formal debate, then I'll go find all of the times you've whined and cried about it to me.
Why would I debate you about a position you made up to strawman me? Find something you disagree with that I actually believe in and I would love to.
Created:
-->
@Public-Choice
I don't claim to know the makeup of the soul, just that science has found evidence it is there.
The “evidence” of the study you cited was compiled by weighing bodies and noting that dead ones inexplicably weigh less. If this is evidence of a soul then it necessarily follows that souls have weight, which would make them physical.
You can’t claim something is evidence when the implication of said evidence contradicts the claim it is supposed to be supporting.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
What's there to take note of? Your hyperbolic absolutism devoid of all nuance?
No, the part of the sentence that you left out which changed the meaning of what I actually said, which you then used the absence of to attack something I didn’t say.
I know you don’t take logic and reason seriously and instead prefer to just throw out verbal diarrhea, but it still helps to read posts before responding to them.
Created:
-->
@Sidewalker
If, as you claim, asserting God is not a truth statement, it's a subjectrive choice, then why do you throw a tantum and start screaming demands for burden of proof anytime someone asserts belief in God.The latter is a factual claim and therefore one which, if you believe in basic principals of logic, shoulder a burden of proofAnd the very next post you never said that LOL
Calling me dishonest while selectively editing our conversation to take my words out of context. WOW.
Let’s take a look at what I actually said and the part you strategically left out:
Post 736:
If, as you claim, asserting God is not a truth statement, it's a subjectrive choice, then why do you throw a tantum and start screaming demands for burden of proof anytime someone asserts belief in God.Rules of your illogical BOP game?Asserting God as the standard for morality, not asserting God as an existent being. If you read the exchange first you would know that.The latter is a factual claim and therefore one which, if you believe in basic principals of logic, shoulder a burden of proof.
I listed two different assertions, one about morality and the other about god being existent. I then stated “the latter” was a factual claim. I was talking about the latter of my listed options, not the latter of what you said.
This is English 101.
And in my last response I also explained that this is why context matters in conversation. I didn’t catch that you were talking about asserting nothing more than a statement of one’s own beliefs because that has absolutely nothing to do with the conversation you were chiming in on and frankly is a stupid thing to talk about on a debate site. No one here cares what you believe if you are not willing to assert and defend it.
It is no wonder you believe the silly things you do, especially when it comes to understanding those you disagree with. You do not pay attention to what others say and you disregard any part of the discussion that doesn’t suit your agenda.
Created:
-->
@Shila
So why are you still arguing with Sidewalker?On the subway with very little service. Not really anything else to do.So You are having a whole conversation in your head.
What’s funny is that while I was responding to you I was also wondering whether you think you are worth anyone’s time and attention more so than Sidewalker. Here you show why you are not.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
So the other politicians do NOT care about their political careers?
Read my sentence again. Take note of the use of the phrase “only thing”.
Love the predictable hyperbolic breakdown of simple concepts.
Love the dismissal of any inconvenient word or phrase to your narrative so that you can oversimplify what was said, so that you can focus on attacking a strawman. I guess I don’t blame you though, your positions aren’t exactly backed up with valid arguments so when this is all you have…
Created:
-->
@Shila
So why are you still arguing with Sidewalker?
On the subway with very little service. Not really anything else to do.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
The only thing those 299 care about are their own political careers, and they’ve all realized that the stupidity of their base and willingness to believe such easily debunkable nonsense is how they further it.
Created:
-->
@Sidewalker
If you read my post, I said, asserts belief in God,
And if you read the exchange your post was written in response to, you would know that this conversation has nothing to do with “asserting belief in God”. It’s about morality and for the most part God has been assumed for the sake of argument.
Context matters in communication. Take note of it and these conversations will go a lot better.
But as you know, I'll be glad to formally debate your incoherent and illogical claim that faith in God carries the burden of proof.
I would debate this claim if I had ever made it and/or believe it. I don’t and never have. You are having a whole conversation in your head.
Created:
-->
@Public-Choice
Biology is the study of life. Chemistry is about chemical compounds.
When you have no valid argument, semantics is always a nice backup.
You know very well what I’m saying. Biology is about the stuff we’re made out of, personhood is about the qualities that make us who we are. These are not the same thing. You know that.
Not true:There is plenty of scientific evidence to suggest there is a soul.
Not going through each of these articles as it would be a monumental waste of time so I’ll just address the first;
If the soul has weight then that would make it physical. Is that your assertion?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Mostly True.That's dogwhistle for, "yeah it's wrong to claim DeSantis voted for zero aid, but we found one small irrelevant detail that was right, and of course, out of context because confirmation bias."
Or…
You could just read the article.
It’s half true because Rubio (not Desantis) voted for a much smaller package, so technically he voted for Sandy relief but it was clearly politics because the reasons he gave for not voting for the bigger package did represent what was in the bill.
Created:
-->
@Sidewalker
If, as you claim, asserting God is not a truth statement, it's a subjectrive choice, then why do you throw a tantum and start screaming demands for burden of proof anytime someone asserts belief in God.Rules of your illogical BOP game?
Asserting God as the standard for morality, not asserting God as an existent being. If you read the exchange first you would know that.
The latter is a factual claim and therefore one which, if you believe in basic principals of logic, shoulder a burden of proof. Clearly you don’t, which is why you pretend it’s a game.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TWS1405
“Niou said Rubio and DeSantis “voted against aid for Hurricane Sandy.”…
We rate this statement Mostly True.”
What is your point?
Created:
-->
@Tarik
But that just begs the question as to why you chose well being as a standard if you didn’t believe that standard to be a true standard?
Because there is no such thing as a “true standard”. That is an incoherent concept, right there with a 5 sided triangle or a married bachelor.
Again, a standard is nothing more than an ideal. It is not a truth statement so it does not have a truth value.
I choose well being as my standard because that’s what I value. You choose God because that’s what you value. Values are subjective. Always have been and always will be.
Created:
-->
@Public-Choice
This is the question of the soul. And there is no reason to believe that fetuses lack a soul. There is zero scientific justification for this.
There is also zero scientific justification for the assertion that souls exist.
Created:
-->
@TWS1405
@Public-Choice
We’re not talking about when a fetus becomes a human being, we’re talking about when it becomes a person. That has almost nothing to do with biology.Is this your way of delineating from a biological argument to a legal one?
No, it’s my way of delineating from what matters to what doesn’t.
Biology is about chemical compounds, personhood is about what makes a person an individual. Chemical compounds is not the reason we value life.
Do I really need to go into any further detail?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TWS1405
He voted against the PORK put into those bills. Not the relief packages.
That’s the convenient nonsense excuse they always give because they’re counting on people like you to accept it without question. Marco Rubio tried this the other day and got fact checked on the spot because everything he mentioned was in response to the damage caused by Sandy.
Created:
-->
@Public-Choice
The biggest flaw in abortionists' reasoning is this: they make arbitrary, unscientific claims for when a human being becomes a human being.
We’re not talking about when a fetus becomes a human being, we’re talking about when it becomes a person. That has almost nothing to do with biology.
Created:
-->
@Tarik
Logic has nothing to do with where you beginIt does if your asserting the beginning to be true
I’m not. We’re talking about morality and what we use as our moral standard. There is no relevant assertion of truth involved at that point.
I assert well being as the core standard by which I judge actions against. Well being is not a truth statement, it is simply the thing I have chosen to judge actions against. You assert God. That’s not a truth statement, that’s simply the thing you have chosen to judge things against.
All of your arguments as to why God should be regarded as the standard are irrelevant to this because one still has to decide in their own subjective opinion that those arguments warrant asserting God as the standard.
So no, this has nothing to do with truth from the beginning because a moral standard is not a truth statement.
You are correct however that logic is necessarily involved once the premises of an argument are challenged. But premises can always be challenged, hence the problem of infinite regress. At some point if we want to have a conversation about anything we have to start somewhere, and at that starting point logic would have no application because logic is necessarily the middle point, never the starting point.
Created:
-->
@Novice_II
- First, I am not seeing the answer to my question, so I am not sure why you are not answering.
I addressed everything you brought up. What question do you think I didn’t answer?
Second, in this case you would say that an abortion from an IVF embryo transfer should be illegal given that the human being already exists?
I’m not opposed to outlawing abortion in that case unless the life of the mother is at risk. If a woman decides to go through the procedure then she made her choice.
Created:
-->
@Tarik
The idea that god has some kind of different mind is purely made up and devoid of any meaning.Your arguments toward God are based on a regular human standard when God is by definition superhuman.
It does not matter whether god is “superhuman”, we’re talking about what objectivity and subjectivity mean. Invoking some vague notion of a mind superior to ours is not an argument, it’s a meaningless declaration. If you have no example of such a mind to base your statement on then you’re just making shit up because it sounds good to you. There is no conversation of value to be had there.
Making consistent arguments within a given standard doesn’t justify the logic behind the standard itself (all circles back to when I said subjective morality doesn’t make sense because you still have to justify that starting point)
This is literally what I’ve been arguing for weeks now.
The difference is that you claim your standard is objective which you have not because you cannot not justify. And the reason you cannot justify it is because it’s a logically incoherent statement.
In order for your claim to make sense it has to follow the laws of logic. But the laws of logic begin at the point at which a starting point (standard, premise) is invoked.
P1: All men are mortal
P2: Socrates is a man
C: Socrates is mortal
Logic has nothing to do with P1 & P2. Logic is what we use to connect P1 & P2 in order to reach C. Therefore the validity of this statement (which is what you need to teach it) is a separate issue from whether the statement is ultimately true. If we begin with “all men are immortal” then it logically follows that Socrates is immortal, even though that statement is false.
Morality is the same damn thing.
P1: Morality is that which aligns to God
P2: Action X aligns to God
C: Action X is moral
The conclusion logically follows which is what makes the conclusion objective. But the premises can easily be changed to “well being” instead of God and the conclusion would still be objectively reached.
Logic has nothing to do with where you begin, it only deals with how you reach the conclusion from the starting point. This is how everything in life works. Every conclusion you have ever drawn in your life has been based on premises you accept which could very well be false. To claim that the premises must be true in order for what follows to make sense is absurd.
We start with God, so any deviation is logically inconsistent because He created the standard and us.
No, you start with God because the idea that he should be the starting point is what you have decided in your subjective opinion.
Arguing that he “created the standard for us” is yet another meaningless and baseless assertion. Even granting that God is the creator of everything, that doesn’t mean his actions are moral unless your position is that “might = right”, something you have yet to clarify your position on.
Created:
-->
@Novice_II
- Does the mother have the right to decide to remove a human being from her body, even when she was the one that placed them there, in a state where the human being is temporarily dependent on her for its survival?
If the human being existed prior to her “placing them there” then my position would be very different. We’re not talking about that however.
As far as her “placing them there”, what you mean is that she had sex. There are two issues with this; first is that it’s actually the man who “placed” the baby in the womb, so unless you plan to investigate the sexual details of every pregnancy you cannot argue that pregnancy makes the woman responsible, unless (the second issue) it is your position that sex itself is a punishable offense. Is that your position?
Created:
-->
@Novice_II
What is the argument for why abortion is not one of those things?
Created:
-->
@Tarik
It literally said (of a person or their judgment) in the definition.
Do you read anything I write? Here is what I said. The full sentence;
“Objectivity isn’t referring to the judging of anything, it’s referring to the essence of what’s being judged.”
Note the bold where I mention that something is in fact being judged. My entire post was about how there has to be a mind involved in the processing of the statement and how this fits into the concept of objectivity as being independent of the mind.
Here is your full definition:
“(of a person or their judgment) not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts.”
These two statements are perfectly in line with each other. Your definition begins with the acknowledgment of the fact that something is being judged which is an acknowledgment that there has to be some mind involved in the process. It then moves on to explaining that the judgement is “not influenced by personal feelings or opinions”. So what would be an example of something that’s not influenced by personal feelings or opinions? The shape of the earth.
It’s the same damn thing I just said. There are two parts; the processing (done by a mind) and the essence (independent of the mind). Both are required. Without the latter it’s not objective, without the former there’s no statement of objectivity/subjectivity to even consider.
It requires God who created it.
Meaningless statement. You’re talking to an atheist.
our mind shouldn’t be compared to His
The idea that god has some kind of different mind is purely made up and devoid of any meaning.
Lastly it seems like your backpedaling from your previous argument because before I said a subjective opinion can’t be taught and now your saying subjective morality can’t be demonstrated, which is basically the same thing.
It’s not backpedaling, you don’t understand it.
I never took the position that something subjective can’t be taught, that was your argument. I showed how morality despite being subjective can be taught (because it is objective from the standpoint of the standard).
I’ve explained this multiple times already. It’s not an absolute. It *depends* on where we are starting from. This is not complicated.
If we are starting from the standpoint of a particular standard, morality is objectively discernible from that point.
If we are starting at a point before a standard is invoked and agreed upon, morality is subjective because any standard can be challenged and there is no means to resolve that dispute other than personal opinion or preference.
Your position is that the latter is still objective because you know, God n stuff. That’s a declaration, not an argument. And it’s one that defies basic logic.
Created:
-->
@Sidewalker
Since you cherry picked from my post, can I assume you agree that you are thinking on a thrid grade level?
Let me know when you have something intelligent to say.
Created:
-->
@Sidewalker
Only things you can point at exist?
Yes, if you cannot point to it in theory, it does not exist. This follows from the definition of “exist”.
Since you cherry picked that one part to disagree with, should I take that to mean that you agree with the rest of the post on what objectivity and subjectivity actually mean?
Created:
-->
@Novice_II
So do we agree that we should be able to prevent people from doing at least some things with their body?
We already went through this. In fact we, or at least I, was way past that.
Yes. Get to your point.
Created:
-->
@Tarik
No, they’re both demonstrating objectivity hence why in the definition it said (of a person or their judgment) meaning you can judge objectively but you can’t do it without a keyword mind, which is exactly what God did when He defined morality
Objectivity isn’t referring to the judging of anything, it’s referring to the essence of what’s being judged.
The earth is round. It takes a mind to utter the statement. It takes a mind to conceive of what “the earth” is pointing to as well as what “round” is pointing to. It takes a mind to compare the two.
The earth’s existence, and the shape it exists within, does not require and is not dependent on a mind. If all the minds in the universe believed it to be a different shape that would not impact its shape one bit.
Objectivity is talking about the latter concept, not the former. The fact that the mind does not impact the shape of the earth, because the earth and its shape are a part of existent reality, is what objectivity… is.
Morality is not a part of existent reality. You cannot point to it, you cannot actualize it, you cannot demonstrate it. Morality, even your conception of it, is entirely the product of a mind. Hence the truthfulness of any moral statement is decided upon by a mind. We call that subjectivity.
We learned this in third grade.
Definitions are nothing more than an attempt to convey concepts in their most basic form. A definition is not an argument and if you’re going to quote them you should really take the time to understand the concept they are conveying.
Created:
-->
@TWS1405
No one could reasonably argue that.Murder is a legal term that specifically applies to (an already born) [a] human being taking the life of another (already born) [a] human being without just cause and with malice and aforethought.Abortion is a medical procedure.Abortion =/= Murder.
This isn’t a legal discussion, no one here is talking about what the law states. We’re arguing over what is right, so hanging your argument on legal technicalities is pointless here.
My claim wasn’t that people who argue abortion of a viable fetus is murder are right, I’m simply saying it can be reasonably argued, because legal technicalities aside, it can be.
All of that had nothing to do with it though, I am simply contrasting the two scenarios because the difference is key to the point I’m raising. If the fetus is non viable, then ending its existence is the necessary effect of abortion, not the primary action. This places the mothers right to her own body ahead of the fetuses right to life, because the former has to be removed before the latter can be actualized.
Created:
-->
@Novice_II
- Do we have a right to prevent people from murdering others? Just a yes/no
Yes
Created:
-->
@Tarik
“Not influenced by personal feelings” does not conflict with “being independent of the mind”. In fact the former is necessarily entailed in the latter;Well if you actually read the whole post you would notice I put emphasis onbecause you can’t consider and represent facts without a keyword MIND.
So you are now confusing the essence of an objective statement with the processing and recognition of the statement itself.
Created:
-->
@Novice_II
Do you think this is an answer to my question?
Yes, it is.
You asked for the argument as to why abortion does not fall under the things we should prevent people from doing. The premise of that question is that we have the right to prevent people from doing things, and that we need a reason to keep abortion off of that list.
I’m pointing out that your premise is flawed. We don’t need a reason to keep abortion off the list, we need a reason to include it.
The onus is therefore on those arguing in favor of restricting abortion, not on those in favor of it’s legality.
Created: