Pro-life and Democrat

[JudgeRightly]

Indeed. It's irrelevant. Likewise, my B answer.

Thank you for at least answering my question.

So you would stop to check that there was no one in the building before blowing it up. I would agree to the fullest (not that my agreeing with you has anything to do with whether it's right or not)!

So, if the principle is that you don't do things that might kill someone, and you should check to make sure there's no one living in something your about to destroy, then does that apply everywhere all the time? or does it depend on the circumstances? In other words, do you blow up the building sometimes or do you always stop to check?

 

[quip]

Translation: Sound bytes, cliches, as I picked your satanic argument of sophistry apart, leaving you bloodied on the road, slumped on the mat, waiting to be pumped up,again, with more deceit, by your father, so that you can continue to surf the net, looking for some Oprah zingers, gems, such as the above, as all of TOL is mesmerized....Weighty.

Please teach us some more "original"....Please?

That was useless. Do you have any substantial retorts against my "satanic sophistry"?

 

[quip]

Thank you for at least answering my question.

So you would stop to check that there was no one in the building before blowing it up. I would agree to the fullest (not that my agreeing with you has anything to do with whether it's right or not)!

So, if the principle is that you don't do things that might kill someone, and you should check to make sure there's no one living in something your about to destroy, then does that apply everywhere all the time? or does it depend on the circumstances? In other words, do you blow up the building sometimes or do you always stop to check?

I would always check first.

Now answer my questions: Are you equating a set to be demolished building to that of a woman's womb?
If so, how are they similar?

 

[john w]

That was useless. Do you have any substantial retorts against my "satanic sophistry"?

More sound bytes. That's all you have?

Dependency-All of us need food, water, rest, and oxygen..............being vulnerable to numerous physical breakdowns, ailments. Are those who must rely on artificial hearts, kidney machines, pace-makers,insulin shots for diabettes, for their survival less deserving of basic human rights than anyone else? Rhetorical question.

Dependency should merit more protection under the law, not less,punk.

Take your seat, Hop Sing. You have an artificial brain, which means you should be aborted, terminated. And the LORD God of the book, will eventually abort you, unless you change your mind. Tick, tick, tic, tic...................

 

[quip]

Dependency should merit more protection under the law, not less,punk.

So should liberty.

 

[JudgeRightly]

I would always check first.

I'm glad. So would I.

Now answer my questions: Are you equating a set to be demolished building to that of a woman's womb?

Close, but not exactly.

If so, how are they similar?

I'll get to that in a moment, but there's one more thing I want to query you about.

You and I agree that there's, at the very least, something wrong with blowing up a building without checking to see if anyone is in it, especially if someone ran up to you and said "STOP! There's someone in the building you're about to destroy!"

So what if were just some skin cells that you found in the building, and not an actual human being, a person? Would you blow up the building? I wouldn't care at all if it was just some dead skin cells from, say, a blister off of someone's foot. I'd just go back to the plunger and blow up the building.

Would you blow up the building if all you found (after I came up to you and said "there's someone in the building, don't blow it up!") were some dead skin cells?

 

[quip]

I'm glad. So would I.



Close, but not exactly.

Then clarify.

I'll get to that in a moment, but there's one more thing I want to query you about.

You and I agree that there's, at the very least, something wrong with blowing up a building without checking to see if anyone is in it, especially if someone ran up to you and said "STOP! There's someone in the building you're about to destroy!"

So what if were just some skin cells that you found in the building, and not an actual human being, a person? Would you blow up the building? I wouldn't care at all if it was just some dead skin cells from, say, a blister off of someone's foot. I'd just go back to the plunger and blow up the building.

Would you blow up the building if all you found (after I came up to you and said "there's someone in the building, don't blow it up!") were some dead skin cells?

In that case I would've still checked...only to realize you're dishonest.

 

[JudgeRightly]

Then clarify.

In that case I would still check only to realize you're dishonest.

And I would totally agree with you.

So...

You yourself said (in not so many words) that you would always check first to see if there's someone in the building, and if so, remove them.

So, why wouldn't you, who is concerned about possible life being in something you're about to destroy, (in essence, a person in a building) check to make sure that the fetus in the mother(which implies a baby, btw)'s womb is not really a person, it's just some tissue, when we are telling you, "STOP! There's a person in that fetus you're about to destroy!"

Wouldn't you first want to check to make sure that what you're destroying is not a person? Because destroying the fetus, like destroying a building, will kill whoever is in it. If there's no one in it, fine. But if the fetus is a person, by your own logic, you should not destroy it.

The little girl above, Amillia Taylor, is evidence that it's a person in the womb.

The Bible says that if in the commission of a crime, the baby in the womb is killed, then the criminal should be put to death, because the baby in the womb is a person.

God would not (and as far as I know, does not) require the death penalty for killing non-humans, only for killing humans, who are made in God's image.

That's another piece of evidence that it's a person in the womb.

So again, if there's even the slightest possibility that there's a person in the mother's womb, wouldn't you rather check and make sure that there's no one there before destroying it? If I and countless other pro-lifers are telling you that there's a person in the mother's womb, and not just a bit of tissue, wouldn't it be appropriate to verify there's no one in the womb?

 

[quip]

So again, if there's even the slightest possibility that there's a person in the mother's womb, wouldn't you rather check and make sure that there's no one there before destroying it?

The problem with your analogy is that it only concerns one half of the equation. You see, you care not for the building that's being destroyed...per your analogy the building is dispensible ...yet a woman (whom carries said life) certainly is not.

There's more at stake here than your analogy even comes close to acknowledging. i.e. It's biased and spurious.

That brings me to my prior question.....

 

[JudgeRightly]

The problem with your analogy is that it only concerns one half of the equation. You see you care not for the building that's being distroyed...per your analogy the building is dispensible ...yet a woman certainly is not.

There's more at stake here than your analogy even comes close to acknowledging.

My post compares the building to the fetus, not the womb.

Try again.

 

[JudgeRightly]

The problem with your analogy is that it only concerns one half of the equation. You see, you care not for the building that's being distroyed...per your analogy the building is dispensible ...yet a woman (whom carries said life) certainly is not.

There's more at stake here than your analogy even comes close to acknowledging.

My post compares the building to the fetus, not the womb.

Try again.

To use the analogy, the mother would be the city that the building is in.

 

[quip]

My post compares the building to the fetus, not the womb.

Try again.

So, the (potential) life inside the building is of no concern to you? You seem confused.

 

[quip]

To use the analogy, the mother would be the city that the building is in.

Seems you're moving goal posts about.
If so, I've no compunction in leveling the building...you haven't made a case for saving the building.

 

[JudgeRightly]

So, the life inside the building is of no concern to you? You seem confused.

Incorrect.

The life inside of the building is of EXTREME importance.

If there's no one in the building (fetus), then according to you, then it would be ok to destroy it.

I'M saying, that there IS someone in that building, and that destroying the fetus will kill the person in the womb, and I have given you two pieces of evidence that supports that claim.

I'm ALSO challenging you to remain consistent in your reasoning, by checking to see there's a human life in something you're about to destroy, and if so, not destroy it.

 

[JudgeRightly]

Seems you're moving goal posts about.

I'm not. My argument has been that the building is the fetus, not the womb.

If so, I've no compunction in leveling the building...you haven't made a case for saving the building.

If there's someone living in the building, you shouldn't destroy the building.

 

[quip]

Incorrect.

The life inside of the building is of EXTREME importance.

If there's no one in the building (fetus), then according to you, then it would be ok to destroy it.

I'M saying, that there IS someone in that building, and that destroying the fetus will kill the person in the womb, and I have given you two pieces of evidence that supports that claim.

I'm ALSO challenging you to remain consistent in your reasoning, by checking to see there's a human life in something you're about to destroy, and if so, not destroy it.

So, you're making the hackneyed fetus/person claim.
Ok. That's still only considering one half of the equation. It wholly biased.

 

[JudgeRightly]

So, you're making the hackneyed fetus/person
claim.
Ok. That's still only considering one half of the equation. It wholly biased.

So, perhaps you could make the argument I know you want to make, which is the "life of the mother" argument? Because this is a discussion, not a monologue. I'm welcome to hearing (reading?) what you have to say.

 

[quip]

So, perhaps you could make the argument I know you want to make, which is the "life of the mother" argument? Because this is a discussion, not a monologue. I'm welcome to hearing (reading?) what you have to say.

The life of the mother - though important - is incidental to my point. Rather, I'm alluding to your lack of objectivity.

Your argument/analogy CAN'T consider the woman's POV in this scenario ..lest you'll give credence to her situation, her capacity to choose; she MUST be demonized, for the moral justification demands it!

Yet, it's not quite that simple. Your argument is a moral abstraction. There's practical considerations (life, liberty) you refuse to incorporate because your indignation can't allow it purchase.

 

[JudgeRightly]

The life of the mother - though important- is incidental to my point. Rather, I'm alluding to your lack of objectivity.

Your argument/analogy CAN'T consider the woman's POV in this scenario ..lest you'll give credence to her situation, her liberties; she MUST be demonized, for the moral justification demands it!

Yet, it's not quite that simple. Your argument is a moral abstraction. There's practical considerations (life, liberty) you refuse to incorporate because your indignation won't allow it.

Why do you assume that I do not consider the mother's point of view? Seems rather biased of you.

 

[quip]

Why do you assume that I do not consider the mother's point of view? Seems rather biased of you.

The construction of your analogy seems to confirm my bias.