User Tag List

Page 1 of 44 123411 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 654

Thread: Abortion///cont.

  1. #1
    Over 4000 post club quip's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Posts
    4,786
    Thanks
    313
    Thanked 719 Times in 584 Posts

    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    565599

    Abortion///cont.

    Quote Originally Posted by Town Heretic View Post
    Nothing in that connects to a refutation of my argument. Those are the dots and that's the nature of my answer.
    Quite to the contrary:

    On closer examination your position demands it. A newly combined egg and sperm are being lobbied as falling under the umbrella of "right-to-life". By comparison you employed your son (among others) as obvious demonstration to such right and asserting that the sperm/egg co-mixture assumes (as per human life in general) the same right your son enjoys. The implications are obvious...you're claiming no difference between your son and the sperm/egg i.e. A=A; they both identify under the rubric of "life". I've simply posited facts and example challenging this broad assertion on equal grounds.
    _/\_

    Christians: "I - a stranger and afraid - in a world I never made.." -- Houseman

  2. #2
    Silver Member patrick jane's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Location
    homeless
    Posts
    23,910
    Thanks
    9,659
    Thanked 12,115 Times in 9,918 Posts

    Blog Entries
    11
    Mentioned
    29 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    2147753
    Quote Originally Posted by quip View Post
    Quite to the contrary:

    On closer examination your position demands it. A newly combined egg and sperm are being lobbied as falling under the umbrella of "right-to-life". By comparison you employed your son (among others) as obvious demonstration to such right and asserting that the sperm/egg co-mixture assumes (as per human life in general) the same right your son enjoys. The implications are obvious...you're claiming no difference between your son and the sperm/egg i.e. A=A; they both identify under the rubric of "life". I've simply posited facts and example challenging this broad assertion on equal grounds.
    I see what you're saying, we'll see what Town Man says
    1 Corinthians 15:1-2 KJV - 1 Corinthians 15:3-4 KJV -


    Colossians 1:13-14 KJV - Colossians 1:15-16 KJV - Colossians 1:17-18 KJV -

    Colossians 1:19-20 KJV - Colossians 1:21-22 KJV - Colossians 1:23 KJV -

    Colossians 1:25-26 KJV 27, 28, 29 - Ephesians 1:7 KJV - Ephesians 1:13, 14 -

  3. The Following User Says Thank You to patrick jane For Your Post:

    Mark M (April 2nd, 2016)

  4. #3
    Silver Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Posts
    17,134
    Thanks
    843
    Thanked 3,703 Times in 2,815 Posts

    Mentioned
    13 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    2147676
    let's start with basics

    would you agree with the following statement?


    at conception, a new, genetically unique human life is created


  5. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to ok doser For Your Post:

    ClimateSanity (April 7th, 2016),Mark M (April 2nd, 2016),patrick jane (April 2nd, 2016)

  6. #4
    Out of Order Town Heretic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Within a whisper of rivers...
    Posts
    17,210
    Thanks
    2,035
    Thanked 4,391 Times in 2,666 Posts

    Blog Entries
    15
    Mentioned
    20 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)


    Rep Power
    2147774
    Quote Originally Posted by quip View Post
    Quite to the contrary:

    On closer examination your position demands it. A newly combined egg and sperm are being lobbied as falling under the umbrella of "right-to-life".
    It's the point of beginning for a new entity, one containing as it does everything necessary to continue down that chronological pathway to the inarguable fruition of you or me. Nothing with that potential exists before the point. The question then becomes at what point along the chronological line of being will/should/must right exist?

    By comparison you employed your son (among others) as obvious demonstration to such right and asserting that the sperm/egg co-mixture assumes (as per human life in general) the same right your son enjoys.
    Rather, what I've stated is that the moment of conception is the beginning point where the vestment of right is as arguable as not. Every point up until birth is similarly situated. The argument follows the implications of that in relation to the foundation of the compact involving right.

    So I don't attempt to answer on the point of whether the act of conception establishes right or whether it's breath, or brainwaves, or heartbeat, or the ability to exist independent of the mother, etc. None of those positions self-evidently establish right. My catch-all is necessitated by the potential for the right in each moment beginning with conception and the understanding that we have no right to abrogate that right wherever it exists absent fairly grotesque violations of the compact that are impossible for the unborn to have accomplished, excepting the mother also has a right to her life and to defend it against a direct threat posed by the unborn's presence under certain and rare circumstance.

    The implications are obvious...you're claiming no difference between your son and the sperm/egg i.e. A=A; they both identify under the rubric of "life".
    No difference in the one aspect that controls what we can or can't do to either.
    You aren't what you eat, but you're always what you swallow.

    Pro-Life







  7. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Town Heretic For Your Post:

    Mark M (April 2nd, 2016),theophilus (April 6th, 2016)

  8. #5
    Over 4000 post club quip's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Posts
    4,786
    Thanks
    313
    Thanked 719 Times in 584 Posts

    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    565599
    Quote Originally Posted by Town Heretic View Post
    It's the point of beginning for a new entity, one containing as it does everything necessary to continue down that chronological pathway to the inarguable fruition of you or me. Nothing with that potential exists before the point. The question then becomes at what point along the chronological line of being will/should/must right exist?

    Rather, what I've stated is that the moment of conception is the beginning point where the vestment of right is as arguable as not. Every point up until birth is similarly situated. The argument follows the implications of that in relation to the foundation of the compact involving right.
    You're speaking strictly of potential; a current reality as of yet establishing practical consideration within the entirety of our system of rights. Rationally speaking, "potential life" (in regard to establishing right) only speaks from potentiality...such may reasonably confer the basic potentiality for the application of its associated right.


    So I don't attempt to answer on the point of whether the act of conception establishes right or whether it's breath, or brainwaves, or heartbeat, or the ability to exist independent of the mother, etc. None of those positions self-evidently establish right. My catch-all is necessitated by the potential for the right in each moment beginning with conception and the understanding that we have no right to abrogate that right wherever it exists absent fairly grotesque violations of the compact that are impossible for the unborn to have accomplished, excepting the mother also has a right to her life and to defend it against a direct threat posed by the unborn's presence under certain and rare circumstance.
    We cannot abrogate a right as of yet established nor establish such right as precursor and premise to the contention itself. Thus, in the spirit of thorough examination and rational discourse we must "attempt" to answer those points noted above.
    Last edited by quip; April 3rd, 2016 at 12:04 PM.
    _/\_

    Christians: "I - a stranger and afraid - in a world I never made.." -- Houseman

  9. The Following User Says Thank You to quip For Your Post:

    theophilus (April 6th, 2016)

  10. #6
    Out of Order Town Heretic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Within a whisper of rivers...
    Posts
    17,210
    Thanks
    2,035
    Thanked 4,391 Times in 2,666 Posts

    Blog Entries
    15
    Mentioned
    20 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)


    Rep Power
    2147774
    Quote Originally Posted by quip View Post
    You're speaking strictly of potential;
    Of two sorts in one sense. But the potential that matters exists at every point along that line of being. The potential that right is present and that we then have no right to abrogate it.

    We cannot abrogate a right as of yet established
    We cannot abrogate a right that is as likely present as not. That's the rub and problem for anyone who desires to allow the taking of that life.
    You aren't what you eat, but you're always what you swallow.

    Pro-Life







  11. The Following User Says Thank You to Town Heretic For Your Post:

    theophilus (April 6th, 2016)

  12. #7
    Over 4000 post club quip's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Posts
    4,786
    Thanks
    313
    Thanked 719 Times in 584 Posts

    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    565599
    Quote Originally Posted by Town Heretic View Post
    We cannot abrogate a right that is as likely present as not. That's the rub and problem for anyone who desires to allow the taking of that life.
    That works either direction.


    You truncated a critical point:
    "We cannot abrogate a right[,] as of yet established nor establish such right as precursor and premise to the contention itself."

    "Thus, in the spirit of thorough examination and rational discourse we must "attempt" to answer those points noted [prior]."
    Last edited by quip; April 3rd, 2016 at 04:22 PM.
    _/\_

    Christians: "I - a stranger and afraid - in a world I never made.." -- Houseman

  13. The Following User Says Thank You to quip For Your Post:

    theophilus (April 6th, 2016)

  14. #8
    Out of Order Town Heretic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Within a whisper of rivers...
    Posts
    17,210
    Thanks
    2,035
    Thanked 4,391 Times in 2,666 Posts

    Blog Entries
    15
    Mentioned
    20 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)


    Rep Power
    2147774
    Quote Originally Posted by quip View Post
    That works either direction.
    It doesn't, reasonably. We are not establishing the right, but protecting against the potential of its violation. That may lead to a defacto status of right, but no assertion of the absolute presence of that right can be or is being made. The argument is simply that it is, so far as can be determined objectively, as likely as not and that being the case we cannot proceed without a risk to a right we have no right to abrogate.
    You aren't what you eat, but you're always what you swallow.

    Pro-Life







  15. The Following User Says Thank You to Town Heretic For Your Post:

    theophilus (April 6th, 2016)

  16. #9
    Over 4000 post club quip's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Posts
    4,786
    Thanks
    313
    Thanked 719 Times in 584 Posts

    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    565599
    Quote Originally Posted by Town Heretic View Post
    It doesn't, reasonably. We are not establishing the right, but protecting against the potential of its violation.
    Then you've no violation to speak of. You must - at the very least - presume such right..or your left propping an non-establised risk.


    That may lead to a defacto status of right, but no assertion of the absolute presence of that right can be or is being made.
    Precisely. (In short) That's what Px and I have been expressing.

    The argument is simply that it is, so far as can be determined objectively, as likely as not and that being the case we cannot proceed without a risk to a right we have no right to abrogate.
    Again, we cannot abrogate a right....where it's risks have yet to be ascertained nor established.
    _/\_

    Christians: "I - a stranger and afraid - in a world I never made.." -- Houseman

  17. The Following User Says Thank You to quip For Your Post:

    theophilus (April 6th, 2016)

  18. #10
    Out of Order Town Heretic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Within a whisper of rivers...
    Posts
    17,210
    Thanks
    2,035
    Thanked 4,391 Times in 2,666 Posts

    Blog Entries
    15
    Mentioned
    20 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)


    Rep Power
    2147774
    Quote Originally Posted by quip View Post
    Then you've no violation to speak of.
    Rather, we will or won't have and have no way to determine it, should we allow the act. Or, there's only one course by which we risk doing a thing we are not entitled to do and creating a harm that we cannot offer redress for.

    Precisely. (In short) That's what Px and I have been expressing.
    The defacto is a given, but it's not in the nature of the claim. That is, if you believe that life begins at conception, happy day for you, but it's not actually being established in the claim.

    Again, we cannot abrogate a right....where it's risks have yet to be ascertained nor established.
    The risk is established without question if the right is present. That's the problem and the answer is that we don't know and it may well be. And so we refrain, the only way to prevent a harm we are not entitled to.
    You aren't what you eat, but you're always what you swallow.

    Pro-Life







  19. The Following User Says Thank You to Town Heretic For Your Post:

    theophilus (April 6th, 2016)

  20. #11
    Over 4000 post club quip's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Posts
    4,786
    Thanks
    313
    Thanked 719 Times in 584 Posts

    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    565599
    Quote Originally Posted by Town Heretic View Post
    The risk is established without question if the right is present. That's the problem and the answer is that we don't know and it may well be. And so we refrain, the only way to prevent a harm we are not entitled to.
    This is exactly where your argument commences. It ignores the preamble and goes straight for singing fat-lady. The problem is that this is a personal view, not one that lends itself to objective discourse.
    _/\_

    Christians: "I - a stranger and afraid - in a world I never made.." -- Houseman

  21. The Following User Says Thank You to quip For Your Post:

    theophilus (April 6th, 2016)

  22. #12
    Out of Order Town Heretic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Within a whisper of rivers...
    Posts
    17,210
    Thanks
    2,035
    Thanked 4,391 Times in 2,666 Posts

    Blog Entries
    15
    Mentioned
    20 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)


    Rep Power
    2147774
    Quote Originally Posted by quip View Post
    This is exactly where your argument commences. It ignores the preamble and goes straight for singing fat-lady. The problem is that this is a personal view, not one that lends itself to objective discourse.
    I simply don't agree that's an objectively fair assessment. Anything beyond the borders of the argument reduces discourse to declarations and appraisals of different subjective valuations.
    You aren't what you eat, but you're always what you swallow.

    Pro-Life







  23. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Town Heretic For Your Post:

    Mark M (April 3rd, 2016),theophilus (April 6th, 2016)

  24. #13
    Gold level Subscriber kmoney's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    A farm
    Posts
    9,706
    Thanks
    993
    Thanked 1,852 Times in 945 Posts

    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)


    Rep Power
    994626
    Quote Originally Posted by Town Heretic View Post
    So I don't attempt to answer on the point of whether the act of conception establishes right or whether it's breath, or brainwaves, or heartbeat, or the ability to exist independent of the mother, etc. None of those positions self-evidently establish right. My catch-all is necessitated by the potential for the right in each moment beginning with conception and the understanding that we have no right to abrogate that right wherever it exists absent fairly grotesque violations of the compact that are impossible for the unborn to have accomplished, excepting the mother also has a right to her life and to defend it against a direct threat posed by the unborn's presence under certain and rare circumstance.
    At what point does it cease to be only a potential for the right?

  25. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to kmoney For Your Post:

    Mark M (April 3rd, 2016),theophilus (April 6th, 2016)

  26. #14
    Out of Order Town Heretic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Within a whisper of rivers...
    Posts
    17,210
    Thanks
    2,035
    Thanked 4,391 Times in 2,666 Posts

    Blog Entries
    15
    Mentioned
    20 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)


    Rep Power
    2147774
    Quote Originally Posted by kmoney View Post
    At what point does it cease to be only a potential for the right?
    I don't know that there's an objective answer. If right isn't ours to endow or create, only an obligation to protect, then I argue that we simply cannot advocate a law that has at its foundation as distinct a possibility in serving a violation of right as actual right.

    What I'm suggesting isn't that we must assume the harm, but only acknowledge the present potential and that potential should stay our hand, lest we do that which we are not entitled to accomplish.
    You aren't what you eat, but you're always what you swallow.

    Pro-Life







  27. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Town Heretic For Your Post:

    Eagles Wings (May 11th, 2017),Mark M (April 3rd, 2016),theophilus (April 6th, 2016)

  28. #15
    Silver Member patrick jane's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Location
    homeless
    Posts
    23,910
    Thanks
    9,659
    Thanked 12,115 Times in 9,918 Posts

    Blog Entries
    11
    Mentioned
    29 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    2147753
    Quote Originally Posted by Town Heretic View Post
    And so we refrain, the only way to prevent a harm we are not entitled to.
    Problem is, PP is entitled still
    1 Corinthians 15:1-2 KJV - 1 Corinthians 15:3-4 KJV -


    Colossians 1:13-14 KJV - Colossians 1:15-16 KJV - Colossians 1:17-18 KJV -

    Colossians 1:19-20 KJV - Colossians 1:21-22 KJV - Colossians 1:23 KJV -

    Colossians 1:25-26 KJV 27, 28, 29 - Ephesians 1:7 KJV - Ephesians 1:13, 14 -

  29. The Following User Says Thank You to patrick jane For Your Post:

    Mark M (April 3rd, 2016)

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 2 users browsing this thread. (1 members and 1 guests)

  1. glassjester

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
About us
Since 1997 TheologyOnline (TOL) has been one of the most popular theology forums on the internet. On TOL we encourage spirited conversation about religion, politics, and just about everything else.

follow us