Religion in Politics
- Locked due to inactivity on Aug 4, '16 4:27pm
Thread Topic: Religion in Politics
-
actually I'm in concurence with geek on this one. techincally and emotionally speaking one has the same value as the other provided you did not know them. You would make your decision based on chance of survival.
-
Religion has no place in politics. Thats why we had events throughout history such as the Enlightenment, reformation, and the Renaissance.
-
@sapphiretwirl's first post -
Cluster of cells: Will eventually think. Feel. Live on its own. And have memories.
5-year-old: At one point couldn't speak. Feel. Live on its own. Once had no memories. Once was not a member of society. Once could not feel these emotions.
@Carri -
The Petri dish will become the child.
It's not quite there yet, but soon it will be the same thing as the child.
It is equal to child. -
That wasn't the point, thank you for ignoring it like you always do.
-
oh sorry from her carri
-
What "point" did I ignore?
-
the point was not the question. The point was to have you realize that you're devaluing a child or over valuing a petri-dish by itemizing them both as equal. They are not equal. They are not the same thing no matter how much you try and tell yourself they are.
-
carri, stop fighting
-
disturb, grow a spine.
-
IHLAOY NewbieNow, as a guy who's only read page 4 of this argument, am I entitled to post my opinion in the thread?
Carri and Barber, your argument and analogy are so completely one sided that I'm amazed anyone in this thread is taking them seriously. I can support the decision to ban abortion and still realise that a baby is more important than a fetus, if only in terms of age and experience. The fact that I would save a baby over a fetus has absolutely no relation what so ever to the argument, so much so that the only reason I could see you resorting to it is because your own argument is so thin and has been totally destroyed in the previous pages.
I'm not devaluing a child, because the very idea of that is absolutely ridiculous. And I'm not over-valuing a 'petri dish' if I want to sound like an idiot, because I can realise that both have the same POTENTIAL. The baby has a head start, but they ultimately have the same chance at life.
Because that is what the crux of the argument comes down to; whether or not someone considers POTENTIAL to make a person. A fetus has potential to be a human. A baby is a human. If there are two children, one stillborn and one healthy, they still had the same potential to be human as each other. Why are we only calling one a baby because he was luckier? Why are they both inhuman if they both die?
Because of a difference of opinion. Because, as far as I can tell on page 4, UnLoving considers potential to be tantamount to humanity, and you and Barber consider experience to be tantamount to humanity. And it's because of this difference that there can be no real change of thinking, unless you both decide to tackle the real issue of what makes a human a human. Is it potential, the chance to live and breath and all that s---, or is it experience, actually living and breathing and all that s---? -
alright then, rather than arguing the semantics of your post, I do like what you said about finding a common ground and arguing from there. So I guess the first thing we need to do is define being "human",
Webster's dictionary defines "human" as the qualities of being human. I.E. "That's a human flaw / we're only human."
It defines "human being" as a person.
It then defines "person" as human being...
We have an issue here.
The secondary definitions of both "human" and "person" however are, "having good or bad qualities that people usually have" and "a person who likes or enjoys something specified".
A fetus lacks good or bad qualities beyond medical condition. And nothing is truly specified to a fetus. Any time before the third trimester, a fetus cannot even survive on it's own. It is a growth. A parasite that does nothing more than take nutrients from it's host to sustain it's own survival. -
IHLAOY NewbieSo is a man living on life support a parasite too? Due to the fact that he cannot survive on his own? From a certain perspective, I could understand, but in general? I'd argue against it. With time and effort, he could regain his wellness and continue to be 'human.' The same with a fetus.
The second definition doesn't work either, since a six month old isn't aware enough to know if it likes something either. Which leads us to the first definition. And once again this leads into opinion rather than fact. What is the good and bad qualities people usually have? To say a fetus has no qualities is an understatement, but we first need to see if these qualities line up with the ones 'people' usually have.
Which falls into opinion again, which could be a problem, but lets keep going to see where it goes. -
AbantaZayna NewbieOkay
-
speaking of the deifnition here, defining a human as having "human qaulities" is begging the question big time. A human fetus is in fact human and therefore exhibits human qaulities. A brain dead human is also human, and exhibits human qaulities. A dead human, cluster of human cells in-vitro, or in a petri dish, or a dead human fetus are all human and exhibit human qaulities.
Even these abstract "good or bad" qaulities that were mentioned in bob's last post are both completely subjective, and un-factual.
The fact is, that we are definable as human, as is our off-sprin, in every phase of development, and to a certain point our cells. (which by the way also exhibit prefence)
I think that a person who distances the fetus, or reproductive cells from the species in order to justify their pro-choice stance is acting hypocritically. In reality, after conception, reproductive cells have become offspring.
The pro-choice agrument is that the parents(generally the mother) has the right to chose whether or not the offspring will live or die.
if you argue this because you've weighed the reality the value of life and potential and found it lacking against the value of what is, it's a fair and rational decision.
On the other hand this distancing tactic is like covering your ears singing lalalalalala because you don't want to loose the argument but also can't stand the thought of what you're saying.
also, IHLAOY.."a six month old isn't aware enough to know if it likes something either"
havn't been around many babies have you? -
Exactly what IHAOY said in his first post.
By your logic of the Petri dish not being a human being, you're suggesting that terminating it would not affect the population. Since the Petri dish is not a human, destroying it would not take away the life of a human. It would not take one less person from this earth.
But that is incorrect, because by destroying the Petri dish, you DID take away what would've added another human to this earth.
Here's what this would sound like:
You have 1 egg. And one hard boiled egg.
You say that the egg is not hard boiled.
I say that is correct, but the egg does have the potential to be hard boiled.
You agree, but you do not think that the egg is equal to the hard boiled egg. The hard boiled egg has experience being a hard boiled egg and the egg does not.
So, if the egg was destroyed, that wouldn't affect how many hard boiled eggs would've otherwise existed? Since it was not a hard boiled egg, destroying it did nothing to affect the hard boiled egg population.
Correct?
This thread is locked, therefore no new posts can be made.
