Vaginas Must Be Republican Kryptonite

Nick333 said:
mildly and crassly are antonyms in this context mate. Make up your mind.
Click to expand...

A brief crass moment is stepping mildly out of line. Only something like spitting in someone's face would be deserving of a ban.
 
OrbitalDawn said:
Link.

:rolleyes:
Click to expand...

It's beyond religious belief. It's about logic. To justify abortion you have to arbitrarily decide that the fetus is not a human being. Otherwise it becomes obvious killing of an innocent = murder. But not everyone accepts that.

Some people can't get that into their heads. There even exist pro-life atheists, not many, but a few at least.
 
daveza said:
And besides, the catholic church says unborn children are not human.
Click to expand...

The Catholic Church did not say that. Colorado Law says that and a Catholic Hospital (not Catholic Church hospital) argued that to get their staff off the hook. This was explained to you already, daveza. Orbital Dawn got it or understood it from the beginning as he claimed. What's your excuse?

Catholic Initiatives is not a Catholic Church run enterprise. Their assets do not belong to the Catholic Church. Their CEO is not a Bishop.
 
Space_Chief said:
It's beyond religious belief. It's about logic. To justify abortion you have to arbitrarily decide that the fetus is not a human being. Otherwise it becomes obvious killing of an innocent = murder. But not everyone accepts that.

Some people can't get that into their heads. There even exist pro-life atheists, not many, but a few at least.
Click to expand...

How is assuming that something without a developed brain or nervous system and therefore incapable of experiencing emotion or self awareness is not a human being arbitrary?
 
Catholic Initiatives is not a Catholic Church run enterprise.
Click to expand...


Representatives of the Catholic bishops of Colorado declined to comment on the legal proceedings, but said they will review the litigation and Catholic Health Initiatives' practices "to ensure fidelity and faithful witness to the teachings of the Catholic Church."
Catholic Health Initiatives would not speak to CNN on camera, but said in a statement, "In this case... as Catholic organizations, (we) are in union with the moral teachings of the Church."
Click to expand...
.
 
acartoon-former-fetus.jpg
 
Nick333 said:
How is assuming that something without a developed brain or nervous system and therefore incapable of experiencing emotion or self awareness is not a human being arbitrary?
Click to expand...

Because it is human. It is alive. It is human in terms of DNA. It is a single entity. It is not animal. It is not part of the woman. It is not an alien. It's not a cancer. It's not a foreign body such as a broken condom. To now say - oh but it can't feel so it can't be human is arbitrary. You are when you kill it, aborting those abilities from emerging. Leaving it alone and letting nature take its course will result in a fully actualised human like yourself. People in coma are still human beings. People under anesthetic are still human beings. Same for people who are asleep. To quote MP below:

Indeed it is an actual biologically human member of the species homo sapiens. That is a plain fact of biology.
Click to expand...

Self awareness is not necessary for definition of human, nor is experience of emotion, especially when you destroy that ability when you perform the abortion.

BTW defeats of all the standard pro abortion arguments:
http://maverickphilosopher.typepad.com/maverick_philosopher/abortion/

You can only get around this by arbitrarily rigging things in such a way: Only individual Homo sapiens organisms who think and feel are worth not killing, even if they will actualise all these abilities within a short time.

BTW it should be said that it is impossible to determine for sure if another person is self aware or conscious anyway. Searle's Chinese Room experiment shows us that we don't know if another individual is calculating or actually recognising symbols consciously and responding.

Some people will also argue the consciousness is an illusion as is free will. So in fact no-one is truly conscious or capable of rational choice or actually feeling pain but only reacting to noxious stimuli.
 
Last edited:
Nick333 said:
BS! It all comes down to claiming a fertilised egg cell being a human being and has rights which is a ridiculous assertion. It's like calling a seed a tree.
Click to expand...
The debate is a little more complicated and no, no need to bring in religion. In this debate, there are several important questions that need to be answered (doesn't matter if you are pro-abortion or not). These include:
1) When is the beginning of a human life?
2) When does human personhood begin?
3) When does a human start to have rights?
4) If it is true that the beginnings of human life, personhood and human rights are simultaneous then is it morally permissible to terminate a human person with rights?
5) If it is true that the beginnings of human life, personhood and human rights are not simultaneous then further question arise.
For example, do all persons have human rights?
6) Is it morally permissible to terminate a human life when it has no personhood and no rights?
7) Is it morally permissible to terminate a human life with personhood and no rights?

On the first question, Space-Chief rightly points out that it is scientifically correct to view the fertilized egg, foetus, baby etc. as a human being. Even Peter Singer a bioethicist that can be argued to be a pro-choice advocate, states it as follows in his book “Writings on an Ethical Life” p127:
“It is possible to give “human being” a precise meaning. We can use it as equivalent to “member of the species Homo sapiens.” Whether a being is a member of a given species is something that can be determined scientifically, by an examination of the nature of the chromosomes in the cells of living organisms. In this sense, there is no doubt that from the first moments of its existence an embryo conceived from human sperm and eggs is a human being.”
Click to expand...

Christopher Krazcor also notes in his book “The Ethics of Abortion: Women's Rights, Human Life, and the Question of Justice” p7:
“The biological humanity of the fetus is admitted by virtually all informed defenders of abortion as shall be evident throughout this book. So in referring to the human fetus or the human being in utero we do not beg any disputed questions.”
Click to expand...

So the debate on this issue appears to be largely settled and informed defenders of pro-life and pro-choice defenders can agree on this issue. The debate is mainly around questions 2-7 above.

Nick333 said:
It's the sort of logical leap that one makes when you reject materialism and jump to "Therefore Jesus".
Click to expand...
What on earth are you talking about? You don't even appear to know what materialism is (don't worry, even materialists struggle to come up with a coherent definition) and now you just built and burned a straw man of "if not materialism then Jesus". Lol.
 
daveza said:
.
Click to expand...

Oh gosh daveza, so when someone claims to agree and follow ANC policy they come under control of the ANC?

And when they claim to do so, they really do so?

Or when they claim to do so, they must do so in everything?

And when someone disagrees about a given law but still wishes to function in society:

They can't use the law to work in the system even though they oppose some of the laws?

(In other words, anyone who disagrees with a law, may ignore it. Is that it, daveza?)

daveza does saying "we follow Catholic teachings" mean the same thing as "We are run by the Catholic Church"?
 
Nick333 said:
It's the sort of logical leap that one makes when you reject materialism and jump to "Therefore Jesus".
Click to expand...

There are many reasons to reject materialism or physicalism as is popularly understood by most internet users (sadly people don't further their understanding and follow through on the logical implications of physicalism they advocate). But that does not mean "therefore Jesus". It just means that the materialist has no right to claim reason or the moral high ground in anything. Once we reject the superstition of physicalism we can search for alternatives.
 
The Catholic Church did not say that. Colorado Law says that and a Catholic Hospital (not Catholic Church hospital) argued that to get their staff off the hook. This was explained to you already, daveza. Orbital Dawn got it or understood it from the beginning as he claimed. What's your excuse?
Click to expand...

I'm trying to remember who died and made your explanations unquestionable. You have delusions of infallability.

http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/colo-bishops-to-review-health-systems-fidelity-to-church/

Denver, Colo., Jan 25, 2013 / 04:03 am (CNA/EWTN News).- Colorado's three bishops will examine litigation surrounding Catholic Health Initiatives, after its lawyers allegedly argued in a wrongful-death lawsuit that human fetuses are not persons.

“The Catholic bishops of Colorado are not able to comment on ongoing legal disputes. However, we will undertake a full review of this litigation, and of the policies and practices of Catholic Health Initiatives to ensure fidelity and faithful witness to the teachings of the Catholic Church,” the bishops said Jan. 24.

“Catholic Health Initiatives has been accused by some of undermining the Catholic position on human life in the course of litigation," they added. "Today, representatives of Catholic Health Initiatives assured us of their intention to observe the moral and ethical obligations of the Catholic Church.”
Click to expand...

So the Catholic church is going to do a full review of the policies and practices of Catholic Health Initiatives when according to you they have no connecetion or jurisdiction?

How exactly is CHI going to observe the moral and ethical teachings of the catholic church by arguing an unborn is not human ?
 
I’m flattered that you’re all so interested in my vagina, but ‘no’ means ‘no’.
Click to expand...

She invoked an image of rape and then applied it to them. That's why they are angry, I don't think it's the use of the word.
 
daveza said:
She did ?

Where ?
Click to expand...

"No means no" is a phrase used in the context of sex (in which 'no' has already been ignored). We all know that. It's not really used in any other context. Her mentioning her vagina as opposed to uterus only validates my theory.

I'm not saying she's not allowed to invoke that image, but that is exactly the intention.
 
Last edited:
TheHiveMind said:
"No means no" is a phrase used in the context of sex. We all know that. It's not really used in any other context. Her mentioning her vagina as opposed to uterus only validates my theory.

I'm not saying she's not allowed to invoke that image, but that is exactly the intention.
Click to expand...

Yep
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X