Originally Posted by Easyrider

Nice try, preppie. The difference is that the right-to-life movement doesn't have extermination centers for the innocent unborn.

Butchers.

No, just hit-men for adults whom they decide no longer deserve the right-to-life.

Theocrats.

> flush! <

When there is only one correct answer it's not a matter of authority anymore, the only thing that matters is how well the moral truth is translated to applicable and enforceable laws.

Right! Why grant people freedom on matters of metaphysics and conscience? There's "only one correct answer." Since our side knows it, we're just being rational: we can impose the only correct answer on you without being authoritarians. That your side doesn't know it, is just a sign of your fundamental irrationality: if you were rational, you'd agree with us; reasonable disagreement is nothing but a contradiction in terms.

The classic cover story for Rand's ironically but nonetheless fundamentally authoritarian political ideas.

Originally Posted by pappillion001

I don't see how it could

Easily, a human life starts when the body is created and ends when it stops functioning.

Rights don't remain with dead people as you pointed out, since you aren't willing to kill sleeping people you admit temporal lack of consciousness does not affect rights. You've got no legs left to stand on.

Originally Posted by pappillion001

If it was that simple then bark or cartoon characters could be moral beings, they exist.

They aren't humans (or another type of rational being).

Originally Posted by pappillion001

A baby can't be aborted, its already out of the womb.

You can't abort the pregnancy, you can abort the childhood still. It is not my fault that some feel more comfortable calling murder something less sinister.

Originally Posted by pappillion001

Generally things like essential organs that work are one, self awareness, consciousness, thinking, the ability to respond and and perceive stimuli, living, breathing oxygen, birth are some that people think make a person a person in some combination. Only birth stands by itself as establishing personhood, but they still do not have full rights as adults do.

So to be a person you must be self-aware, conscious, and thinking? (the rest of that stuff was pretty irrelavant)

Originally Posted by pappillion001

You skip half my post and then come back with this? I intentionally pointed out where you avoided questions in response to this.

The old 'not comparable' card is thrown when someone doesn't want to consider the comparison.

Originally Posted by pappillion001

No, used as you did in your earlier post makes them irrelevant, asking how you can justify certain types of killing and not others is relevant

Let's review:
You: You can't say killing a human is always immoral because you are not a pacifist.
Me: Just wars and capital punishments are not comparable because there are criminals in both who have nullified their rights, i.e. they are not innocent. There can be no justification of killing an innocent party.
You: The innocence of the child is irrelavant.

Originally Posted by pappillion001

Either killing is killing or it isn't. If you can justify some killing then how can the right to life be an inalienable right?

There is no right to life, there is a right to a life free from the interference of others and it can be negated by one's own actions.

Originally Posted by pappillion001

And there is the morality that we agree on that is necessary for peaceful coexistence which permits each to have the best chance of reaching individual potential. We don't leave these things to your bias or mine. We have judges who have impartial interests.

ROFL!

My philisophy is based on objective truth, holds that moral theory infected by bias is worthless; isn't that just what you mean when you say impartial? Objective, rational?

Everyone has a philosophy, everyone has values. You basically just said it's not left to our bias but to people who have an objective moral view. I'll tell you who those people are, objectivists.

Originally Posted by pappillion001

Our laws and punishments are not made by you or I alone and are not kept secret nor do they vary at the whim of one person.

That's because subjectivism is the touch of death to any field of knowledge which it touches, science, engineering, morality. None can survive it's application.

That our laws would be unable to maintain order if they formed on subjectivist premises only goes to show that subjectivism not objectivism is the artificial human construct, the mad ravings of the blind.

Originally Posted by pappillion001

People have been on this path for sometime and we have not wiped each other off the planet because we can't agree on morality.

That's what the law is, one morality for all, an absolute morality.

All wars, feuds, and oppressions have at their source a disagreement over morality. I do not accept that we haven't wiped each other out, we have to the degree that we have disagreed on morality. I have every labor camp, every battle field, every murder and assassination as evidence.

Originally Posted by pappillion001

Yes I am still waiting for your answer.

It's your responsibility to answer, I am not the one who disconnects human rights from humans.

Originally Posted by pappillion001

And I see you skipped several other points by just ignoring them.

Look, this isn't our first argument; you can only quit so many times before the quality of response goes down. You quit on the objective morality argument, you quit on the taxes argument, you quit on the ideal society argument, you quit on the deviant sex arguments, and several other smaller issues.

I'm not going to respond to what I find irrelavant just to see my extra effort thrown away.

Originally Posted by theolddog

An independent existence.

That's not true.

Originally Posted by Matthew

Right! Why grant people freedom on matters of metaphysics and conscience? There's "only one correct answer." Since our side knows it, we're just being rational: we can impose the only correct answer on you without being authoritarians. That your side doesn't know it, is just a sign of your fundamental irrationality: if you were rational, you'd agree with us; reasonable disagreement is nothing but a contradiction in terms.

The classic cover story for Rand's ironically but nonetheless fundamentally authoritarian political ideas.

Nice speech, but not an argument. After all, if you don't have an argument you aren't being rational

Originally Posted by Matthew

No, just hit-men for adults whom they decide no longer deserve the right-to-life.

Theocrats.

<Flush>

Media covers up gay on gay murder

Media 'covering up sordid, gay-on-gay murder'

Besides the innocent unborn, you people even kill yourselves, and get the media to cover up for you.

Who should have more rights... A speck of Goo which has yet to reach the stage of fetus or a woman who has been raped and doesn't want to give birth to a baby born of a violent crime?...

I say the woman should always have the right to choose.

Originally Posted by Xcaliber

Who should have more rights... A speck of Goo which has yet to reach the stage of fetus or a woman who has been raped and doesn't want to give birth to a baby born of a violent crime?...

I say the woman should always have the right to choose.

Why punish a baby for a father's mistake. I noticed that you referred to it as a baby. Thats interesting, so do you think a baby is a human?

Originally Posted by Theophilus

Why punish a baby for a father's mistake. I noticed that you referred to it as a baby. Thats interesting, so do you think a baby is a human?

It's a Baby after it is born.. I refereed to a Fetus as well, which is what it would be before it becomes a baby.

Why does it have to be a Fathers Mistake?... What about a Rape Victim that becomes pregnant.. should we Force her to carry a Baby spawned from a violent Crime, for which she may very well resent .. Or how about if the Doctors tell you that if your wife gives birth she has a 80% chance of dying.. Don't you think that Woman should have the Choice to live?..

Look.. I don't agree with Abortion.. I don't like Abortion.. But I firmly believe that it is none of my business what someone else decides to do with their Life.

Originally Posted by Xcaliber

Look.. I don't agree with Abortion.. I don't like Abortion.. But I firmly believe that it is none of my business what someone else decides to do with their Life.

I firmly believe that it is every bit my business what someone else decides to do with another person's life if they don't have permission.

Originally Posted by Freedom

Easily, a human life starts when the body is created and ends when it stops functioning.

That could be anywhere from 3 months until after birth.

Rights don't remain with dead people as you pointed out, since you aren't willing to kill sleeping people you admit temporal lack of consciousness does not affect rights. You've got no legs left to stand on.

Temporal lack is not the same as does not exist. We are looking for at what point it begins not whether an interruption is permanent. My legs are standing just fine.

They aren't humans (or another type of rational being).

So you would equate or consider a requirement to be rationality. Lacking that rationality would they still have the rights of someone who has it?

You can't abort the pregnancy, you can abort the childhood still.

That is what is being argued, well is it moral to do so since obviously we can and sometimes it is done as a result of the biological process of survival.

It is not my fault that some feel more comfortable calling murder something less sinister.

It is your fault to refer to something more sinister than it is to make someone feel uncomfortable.

So to be a person you must be self-aware, conscious, and thinking? (the rest of that stuff was pretty irrelavant)

I don't know a working brain seems important so does being viable otherwise we go back to bark and cartoon characters.

What defines a person varies Pro life people make it as broad as they can, while those who aren't motivated by abortion issues use those listed and some others in some combination. Would you dispute those you listed as being in the definition of what constitutes personhood?

The old 'not comparable' card is thrown when someone doesn't want to consider the comparison.

Also when the two subjects aren't comparable

Let's review:
You: You can't say killing a human is always immoral because you are not a pacifist.

No I said it because you claim an objective right, but offer reasons that permit it.

Me: Just wars and capital punishments are not comparable because there are criminals in both who have nullified their rights, i.e. they are not innocent. There can be no justification of killing an innocent party.

Then it isn't an inalienable right and it becomes subjective. How much guilt is death worth? Who is guilty when both sides believe they fight a just war against an agressor

You: The innocence of the child is irrelavant.

It isn't relevent or if you have to think in those terms it is guilty, but regardless its not a choice to be made by those who are not involved.

There is no right to life, there is a right to a life free from the interference of others and it can be negated by one's own actions.

Children don't have those same rights and it could easily be understood that the fetus is interfering with the mothers life. Right now abortion is legal unless your a minor then that choice belongs to the parent.

ROFL!

My philisophy is based on objective truth, holds that moral theory infected by bias is worthless; isn't that just what you mean when you say impartial? Objective, rational?

Everything has some bias in it. An objective truth is sometimes it is ok to kill? Its ok when your rights are violated or it appears they will be? Stealing a pack of gum is a violation of someone's right is it enough to justify killing the thief?

Everyone has a philosophy, everyone has values. You basically just said it's not left to our bias but to people who have an objective moral view. I'll tell you who those people are, objectivists.

How subjective of you.

That's because subjectivism is the touch of death to any field of knowledge which it touches, science, engineering, morality. None can survive it's application.

That our laws would be unable to maintain order if they formed on subjectivist premises only goes to show that subjectivism not objectivism is the artificial human construct, the mad ravings of the blind.

Be thankful for subjectivists, without them our idea of morality would never evolve to the point we are today. It wasn't an objectivist who said no that isn't right.

That's what the law is, one morality for all, an absolute morality.

That is justice not objectivity or tyranny depending how forceful you impose your morality on people.

All wars, feuds, and oppressions have at their source a disagreement over morality. I do not accept that we haven't wiped each other out, we have to the degree that we have disagreed on morality.

What else is subject to your acceptance?

I have every labor camp, every battle field, every murder and assassination as evidence.

And I have everything else as mine.

It's your responsibility to answer, I am not the one who disconnects human rights from humans.

Neither do I, but I don't take them away because of what could be.

If the woman wasn't concerned about it being a baby she would have no reason to have an abortion, which proves that it must be a baby. Killing babies is not nice.

Originally Posted by pappillion001

That could be anywhere from 3 months until after birth.

No, biologically it is at conception; any other point is arbitrary and no more worthy or correct until after puberty (when growth stops).

Originally Posted by pappillion001

Temporal lack is not the same as does not exist. We are looking for at what point it begins not whether an interruption is permanent.

Yes it is, temporal lack means it does not exist at that time; and the argument you have put forth is that at the time a human being isn't aware or rational or whatever you are basing it on. You have said it's potentially X (where X is the undefined person establishing quality). Well a sleeping person is potentially X as well (when they wake up). Why bring potential into it? We are after all talking about what is going on right then.

Originally Posted by pappillion001

So you would equate or consider a requirement to be rationality. Lacking that rationality would they still have the rights of someone who has it?

Being a member of a rational species yes.

Originally Posted by pappillion001

That is what is being argued, well is it moral to do so since obviously we can and sometimes it is done as a result of the biological process of survival.

Biology doesn't care for morality. People die of old age, that doesn't mean it's alright to murder people. (just because it happens in nature)

Originally Posted by pappillion001

It is your fault to refer to something more sinister than it is to make someone feel uncomfortable.

Let them feel uncomfortable, what I don't understand are people who believe abortion is murder being so calm.

Originally Posted by pappillion001

I don't know a working brain seems important so does being viable otherwise we go back to bark and cartoon characters.

Define working brain and viability.

Originally Posted by pappillion001

Would you dispute those you listed as being in the definition of what constitutes personhood?

No, but I am not arguing that a person springs fully formed from the ether; I am arguing that whether or not a human being is displaying person like qualities at the time is irrelevant because on principle any organism capable of those qualities should be respected with full rights until such time as they auto-destruct them.

Originally Posted by pappillion001

Also when the two subjects aren't comparable

Well watch me continue.

Originally Posted by pappillion001

Then it isn't an inalienable right and it becomes subjective. How much guilt is death worth? Who is guilty when both sides believe they fight a just war against an agressor

A punishment cannot morally exceed an eye for an eye, but it almost never does. The guilty party in a war is not altered by the aggressors certainty that they are acting morally, I don't think I could name a war in which both sides didn't think they were doing the right thing. Belief doesn't even enter into the equation.

Originally Posted by pappillion001

It isn't relevent or if you have to think in those terms it is guilty, but regardless its not a choice to be made by those who are not involved.

Of course, only murderers and victims are invited to that decision; ultimate choice to be made by the murderers.

Originally Posted by pappillion001

Children don't have those same rights and it could easily be understood that the fetus is interfering with the mothers life.

Do they have the 'right' to not be killed or abandoned?

Originally Posted by pappillion001

Right now abortion is legal unless your a minor then that choice belongs to the parent.

Relevancy?

Originally Posted by pappillion001

Everything has some bias in it.

Prove it.

Originally Posted by pappillion001

How subjective of you.

Explain.

Originally Posted by pappillion001

Be thankful for subjectivists, without them our idea of morality would never evolve to the point we are today. It wasn't an objectivist who said no that isn't right.

I'll be thankful for subjectivist when I begin to understand how helpful the bubonic plague was.

Originally Posted by pappillion001

That is justice not objectivity or tyranny depending how forceful you impose your morality on people.

Why is it (or should be) the same for everyone?

Originally Posted by pappillion001

And I have everything else as mine.

Unfortunately the scope of your evidence is limited to disagreements on morality, people agree on morality most of the time through unified law. Even disparate countries have almost identical core laws.

So where is this 'everything' else within your scope?

Originally Posted by pappillion001

Neither do I, but I don't take them away because of what could be.

Please answer the question.

Originally Posted by Freedom

I firmly believe that it is every bit my business what someone else decides to do with another person's life if they don't have permission.

So then you are OK with assisted suicide.

I agree.

Since there is no other "person" in the case of abortion, then you are OK with that as well.

You old Libertarian, you.

Originally Posted by hwyangel

If the woman wasn't concerned about it being a baby she would have no reason to have an abortion, which proves that it must be a baby. Killing babies is not nice.

That's like saying that because an acorn will grow into an oak tree, an acorn is an oak tree. Exactly the same sort of semantic equivocation, in complete disregard for real differences over time.

Originally Posted by Easyrider

<Flush>

Media covers up gay on gay murder

Media 'covering up sordid, gay-on-gay murder'

Besides the innocent unborn, you people even kill yourselves, and get the media to cover up for you.

"We people?" Give me a break. Perhaps you have me confused with the poster whose moniker is "Matthew S." I realize its confusing, what with there being a whole letter to pay attention to. But do try to keep up.

But I will say that while I'm not gay myself, I'm definitely on Matthew S's side on this issue, because I support gay rights entirely. I realize that the very idea of defending the liberties of people who don't live as you do is completely alien to your theocratic freedom-hatred. But unlike you, I actually care about religious freedom.

Meanwhile, Christian-on-Christian violence happens all the time, so I don't see what your non-objective news source's story proves at all, even if despite its flagrant bias, the story is true. Indeed, the American religious liberties that you so loathe, stem largely from a desire not to repeat the following:

European wars of religion - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Christians killing Christians -- who'd'a thunk it?!? I guess a little history is a good thing to know.

> flush! <