So because you don't agree with my arguments thus far, I've automatically retreated to religious grounds? Please, that's pathetic. You are better than that.
Navigation
Install the app
How to install the app on iOS
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
More options
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Utilitarian Justification for Abortion
- Thread starter Agnapostate
- Start date
So because you don't agree with my arguments thus far, I've automatically retreated to religious grounds? Please, that's pathetic. You are better than that.
Agnapostate
Rookie
- Thread starter
- Banned
- #82
No, but it's what you believe.
And perhaps it's why you never responded to my rebuttal.
And perhaps it's why you never responded to my rebuttal.
No, but it's what you believe.
And perhaps it's why you never responded to my rebuttal.
Actually, it's because I've been busy.
I'll get to them soon enough.
eots
no fly list
One Nation Under God
SETTING the RECORD STRAIGHT
“One nation under God”
Joseph R. Larson - May 25, 2001
Patrick Henry cautioned; “We are apt to shut our eyes against a painful truth …For my part, whatever anguish of the spirit it may cost, I am willing to know the whole truth; to know the worst; and to prepare for it.” As we near this nation’s celebration of Independence there are three truths that need to be told. First. We are not supposed to be a democracy; we are supposed to be a Constitutional Republic. Second. We find ourselves today a secular society but we were formed as a Christian nation. Third. Americans have been taught to believe the concept that “a wall of separation of church and State” exists between religion and government. The truth is our founding fathers did not want any one Christian church to be preferred (have power) over another. Religion was fundamental to every aspect of life. They did not want religion out of government—they wanted government out of religion!
America is prosperous, powerful and leader of the free world because of the principles upon which she was founded. These principles are America’s heritage. Because knowledge of our heritage is being lost, America is losing her way. We are fast becoming a socialist nation surrendering the principles and freedom upon which our nation is based.
What is the source of these principles for the American Republic? According to Noah Webster, who defined the meaning of words used in our founding documents: “Our citizens should early understand that the genuine source of correct republican principles is the Bible, particularly the New Testament.” Jedediah Moore, another noted educator, added this: “Whenever the pillars of Christianity shall be overthrown, our present republican forms of government and all the blessings which flow from them, must fall with them.”
Politicians, professors, and news commentators constantly remind us of our wonderful ‘democracy’, but our founding documents call us a ‘constitutional republic’. Why did our founding fathers create a ‘republic’ rather than a ‘democracy’? John Adams, America’s second President tells us, “Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide.” Benjamin Rush, another signer of the Constitution stated, “A simple democracy is one of the greatest of evils.” The founders remembered that most infamous democratic vote in history when the ‘will of the people’ cried – “Crucify Him.” This would not have happened in a Republic because a Republic is ‘rule of law’ not the rule of the mob.
A republican form of government is where citizens elect representatives who will then pass the laws by which we are to be governed. In forming our republic the framers of the Constitution cited nearly 15,000 references, but the three main reference sources were: the King James Bible - Spirit Of The Laws, by Baron Charles Montesquieu and - Commentaries On The Laws Of England, by Sir William Blackstone. All three identify the ‘rule of law’ as “Principles that do not change”. The rule of law was based on ‘natural law’, which is the law God gave His people through the Bible and the Ten Commandments.
Taking from Isaiah 33:22, “God is our King, God is our lawgiver, God is our Judge”- the founders gave us the very formation of our government – thus the Executive, the Legislative and Judicial branches. Historians are now beginning to realize that the Bible is the basis for our American system of Jurisprudence and Constitution.
Lastly, there is no “Wall of separation of church and state”. That phrase is not found anywhere in our founding documents. When signing the Declaration of Independence, Samuel Adams, the father of the Revolution declared; “We have this day restored the Sovereign to Whom all men ought to be obedient. He reigns in Heaven and from the rising to the setting of the sun – let His Kingdom come.” James Madison, the father of the Constitution said, “We have staked the whole future of American civilization, not upon the power of government, far from it…but upon the capacity of mankind for self government; upon the capacity of each and all of us to govern ourselves, to control ourselves, to sustain ourselves according to The Ten Commandments of God.”
In the immortal words of Patrick Henry: “It cannot be emphasized too strongly or too often that this great nation was founded, not by religionists, but by Christians; not on religions, but on the Gospel of Jesus Christ”. John Adams, our second President said, “The general principles on which the fathers achieved independence were … the general principles of Christianity … now I will avow that I then believed, and now believe, that those general principles of Christianity are as eternal and immutable as the existence and attributes of God … I could therefore safely say … that I believe they (the people) would never make discoveries in contradiction to these general principles.”
Historical information from 1776 gives us the following facts. 98% of the people then in America professed themselves to be Protestant Christians; 1.8 % declared themselves to be Roman Catholic Christians; and only two- tenths of one percent said they were of the Jewish faith. Christianity was basically the only religion in America. Thomas Jefferson called the Bible the cornerstone for American liberty and wanted it placed in our schools as the light that should lead the way.
In 1846 the Supreme Court of South Carolina declared – “Christianity is a part of the common law of the land, with liberty of conscience to all. It has always been so recognized… it is the foundation of those morals and manners upon which our society is formed; it is their basis. Remove this and they would fall. The U.S. Supreme Court in 1892 ruled – “Our laws and institutions must necessarily be based upon the teachings of the Redeemer of Mankind. It is impossible that it should be otherwise; and in this sense and to this extent our civilization and our institutions are emphatically Christian.” Again the Supreme Court in 1952 stated – “We are a religious people whose institutions all presuppose a Supreme Being …”.
These quotations are representative of many which support the facts; that this is supposed to be a Constitutional Republic - based entirely upon Christian principles – with no separation of Church and State. Since our very form of government and legal system were formed from, and based on, God’s natural law and the Bible, then how can we separate church from State? We cannot. The heart cannot be removed from the body without the death of that body. Unfortunately and to our shame, none of this is being taught in our schools today. We will either educate our children to be the enemies of freedom and independence - as we are currently doing – or, we can educated them in the truths and visions of our Founding Fathers – raising future patriots for America.
One Nation Under God
SETTING the RECORD STRAIGHT
“One nation under God”
Joseph R. Larson - May 25, 2001
Patrick Henry cautioned; “We are apt to shut our eyes against a painful truth …For my part, whatever anguish of the spirit it may cost, I am willing to know the whole truth; to know the worst; and to prepare for it.” As we near this nation’s celebration of Independence there are three truths that need to be told. First. We are not supposed to be a democracy; we are supposed to be a Constitutional Republic. Second. We find ourselves today a secular society but we were formed as a Christian nation. Third. Americans have been taught to believe the concept that “a wall of separation of church and State” exists between religion and government. The truth is our founding fathers did not want any one Christian church to be preferred (have power) over another. Religion was fundamental to every aspect of life. They did not want religion out of government—they wanted government out of religion!
America is prosperous, powerful and leader of the free world because of the principles upon which she was founded. These principles are America’s heritage. Because knowledge of our heritage is being lost, America is losing her way. We are fast becoming a socialist nation surrendering the principles and freedom upon which our nation is based.
What is the source of these principles for the American Republic? According to Noah Webster, who defined the meaning of words used in our founding documents: “Our citizens should early understand that the genuine source of correct republican principles is the Bible, particularly the New Testament.” Jedediah Moore, another noted educator, added this: “Whenever the pillars of Christianity shall be overthrown, our present republican forms of government and all the blessings which flow from them, must fall with them.”
Politicians, professors, and news commentators constantly remind us of our wonderful ‘democracy’, but our founding documents call us a ‘constitutional republic’. Why did our founding fathers create a ‘republic’ rather than a ‘democracy’? John Adams, America’s second President tells us, “Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide.” Benjamin Rush, another signer of the Constitution stated, “A simple democracy is one of the greatest of evils.” The founders remembered that most infamous democratic vote in history when the ‘will of the people’ cried – “Crucify Him.” This would not have happened in a Republic because a Republic is ‘rule of law’ not the rule of the mob.
A republican form of government is where citizens elect representatives who will then pass the laws by which we are to be governed. In forming our republic the framers of the Constitution cited nearly 15,000 references, but the three main reference sources were: the King James Bible - Spirit Of The Laws, by Baron Charles Montesquieu and - Commentaries On The Laws Of England, by Sir William Blackstone. All three identify the ‘rule of law’ as “Principles that do not change”. The rule of law was based on ‘natural law’, which is the law God gave His people through the Bible and the Ten Commandments.
Taking from Isaiah 33:22, “God is our King, God is our lawgiver, God is our Judge”- the founders gave us the very formation of our government – thus the Executive, the Legislative and Judicial branches. Historians are now beginning to realize that the Bible is the basis for our American system of Jurisprudence and Constitution.
Lastly, there is no “Wall of separation of church and state”. That phrase is not found anywhere in our founding documents. When signing the Declaration of Independence, Samuel Adams, the father of the Revolution declared; “We have this day restored the Sovereign to Whom all men ought to be obedient. He reigns in Heaven and from the rising to the setting of the sun – let His Kingdom come.” James Madison, the father of the Constitution said, “We have staked the whole future of American civilization, not upon the power of government, far from it…but upon the capacity of mankind for self government; upon the capacity of each and all of us to govern ourselves, to control ourselves, to sustain ourselves according to The Ten Commandments of God.”
In the immortal words of Patrick Henry: “It cannot be emphasized too strongly or too often that this great nation was founded, not by religionists, but by Christians; not on religions, but on the Gospel of Jesus Christ”. John Adams, our second President said, “The general principles on which the fathers achieved independence were … the general principles of Christianity … now I will avow that I then believed, and now believe, that those general principles of Christianity are as eternal and immutable as the existence and attributes of God … I could therefore safely say … that I believe they (the people) would never make discoveries in contradiction to these general principles.”
Historical information from 1776 gives us the following facts. 98% of the people then in America professed themselves to be Protestant Christians; 1.8 % declared themselves to be Roman Catholic Christians; and only two- tenths of one percent said they were of the Jewish faith. Christianity was basically the only religion in America. Thomas Jefferson called the Bible the cornerstone for American liberty and wanted it placed in our schools as the light that should lead the way.
In 1846 the Supreme Court of South Carolina declared – “Christianity is a part of the common law of the land, with liberty of conscience to all. It has always been so recognized… it is the foundation of those morals and manners upon which our society is formed; it is their basis. Remove this and they would fall. The U.S. Supreme Court in 1892 ruled – “Our laws and institutions must necessarily be based upon the teachings of the Redeemer of Mankind. It is impossible that it should be otherwise; and in this sense and to this extent our civilization and our institutions are emphatically Christian.” Again the Supreme Court in 1952 stated – “We are a religious people whose institutions all presuppose a Supreme Being …”.
These quotations are representative of many which support the facts; that this is supposed to be a Constitutional Republic - based entirely upon Christian principles – with no separation of Church and State. Since our very form of government and legal system were formed from, and based on, God’s natural law and the Bible, then how can we separate church from State? We cannot. The heart cannot be removed from the body without the death of that body. Unfortunately and to our shame, none of this is being taught in our schools today. We will either educate our children to be the enemies of freedom and independence - as we are currently doing – or, we can educated them in the truths and visions of our Founding Fathers – raising future patriots for America.
One Nation Under God
- Jan 8, 2007
- 30,528
- 2,263
- 1,045
A zygote is a distinct genetic individual at the point of its fertilization.
FACT
A zygote is not a person at the point of its fertilization, has not even a semblance of sentience, and is not a being of any moral worth.
OPINION.
your opinion of sentience and the worth thereof doesn't mean much to me.
FACT
A zygote is not a person at the point of its fertilization, has not even a semblance of sentience, and is not a being of any moral worth.
OPINION.
your opinion of sentience and the worth thereof doesn't mean much to me.
Agnapostate
Rookie
- Thread starter
- Banned
- #86
OPINION.
your opinion of sentience and the worth thereof doesn't mean much to me.
Rebut it, then. Solve the logical inconsistency of human fetuses being considered to be of greater moral value than nonhuman animals with a greater awareness of their existence and surroundings, and a greater capacity to feel pain.
eots
no fly list
tell me he is not saying a girl that's menstrual should have the right to consent to sex
- Jan 8, 2007
- 30,528
- 2,263
- 1,045
Rebut it, then. Solve the logical inconsistency of human fetuses being considered to be of greater moral value than nonhuman animals with a greater awareness of their existence and surroundings, and a greater capacity to feel pain.
why would I try to rebut your OPINION? I don't care if you think it's ok to kill a child 5 seconds before it shoots out of a vagina because you OPINION means two things. Im sure you can guess what they are.
uh, there IS NOT logical inconstancy in the idea that a HUMAN BEING fetus is more valuable than a PIG fetus. Thats just a stupid, STUPID strawman attempt. PIG feti don't become HUMANS. However, HUMAN zygotes do. Your attempt to force a moral equivalence between the two is just laughable. Hell, "percieved awareness" doesn't even become a factor. Shit, a foal can run on it's first fucking day out of the womb. Can we kill toddlers because they can't walk as soon as a fucking horse?
CRAZY.
As it sits, you validated the genetic distinction argument. Which, as I originally stated, is a much better debate for those interested in preserving human life then getting bogged down with arguing with the likes of you about what validates a "person".
Agnapostate
Rookie
- Thread starter
- Banned
- #91
Tell me he's not saying animals have more intrinsic value than humans.
Animals with a greater level of self-awareness, rationality, and a greater capacity to feel pain than certain humans do indeed have a greater intrinsic value than those humans. For instance, a dog, cat, pig, or chicken would have greater intrinsic moral value than a human fetus in that regard, and a fish would have greater intrinsic moral value than a human embryo.
This is a truth that the utilitarian philosopher Jeremy Bentham recognized 200 years ago. I find it astounding that a man can be so ahead of his time as to protest sodomy laws in the early 1800's, while Rick Santorum still supports their existence today.
Jeremy Bentham said:The day may come when the rest of the animal creation may acquire those rights which never could have been withholden from them but by the hand of tyranny. The French have already discovered that the blackness of the skin is no reason why a human being should be abandoned without redress to the caprice of a tormentor. It may one day come to be recognized that the number of legs, the villosity of the skin, or the termination of the os sacrum are reasons equally insufficient for abandoning a sensitive being to the same fate. What else is it that should trace the insuperable line? Is it the faculty of reason, or perhaps the faculty of discourse? But a full-grown horse or dog is beyond comparison a more rational, as well as a more conversable animal, than an infant of a day or a week or even a month, old. But suppose they were otherwise, what would it avail? The question is not, Can they reason? nor Can they talk? but, Can they suffer?
You likely have no rational criticism of this position, considering what you have posted so far, and no criticism of this position whatsoever except that you believe that humans were created in the image of God and animals were not, and that humans possess an immortal soul and that animals do not. I no longer share that belief, so don't bother expressing it. It's not a suitable guide for secular legal policy, at any rate, nor secular ethics.
tell me he is not saying a girl that's menstrual should have the right to consent to sex
Please tell me you're not taking up forum space with this inane nonsense.
Agnapostate
Rookie
- Thread starter
- Banned
- #93
why would I try to rebut your OPINION? I don't care if you think it's ok to kill a child 5 seconds before it shoots out of a vagina because you OPINION means two things. Im sure you can guess what they are.
uh, there IS NOT logical inconstancy in the idea that a HUMAN BEING fetus is more valuable than a PIG fetus. Thats just a stupid, STUPID strawman attempt. PIG feti don't become HUMANS. However, HUMAN zygotes do. Your attempt to force a moral equivalence between the two is just laughable. Hell, "percieved awareness" doesn't even become a factor. Shit, a foal can run on it's first fucking day out of the womb. Can we kill toddlers because they can't walk as soon as a fucking horse?
CRAZY.
As it sits, you validated the genetic distinction argument. Which, as I originally stated, is a much better debate for those interested in preserving human life then getting bogged down with arguing with the likes of you about what validates a "person".
I didn't say that, you idiot. As much as it goes against your nature, try not to make up stupid lies.
I said that human life =/= personhood.
It matters not that a fetus is a potential person, and that abortion inhibits that potential, unless you are willing to object to contraception and celibacy on the same grounds. If you will retort that abortion actively ends a human life, while celibacy and contraception merely prevent its existence, you are asserting that the fetus already has some inherent value by virtue of merely existing. I have pointed out that numerous nonhuman animals possess a greater level of awareness and a greater capacity to feel pain than that human fetus does, and thus are of greater moral status.
You likely disagree on the grounds that you consider all forms of human life to be inherently superior to all forms of nonhuman animal life. As a utilitarian, I reject this premise, and I would ask you to support it.
Agnapostate
Rookie
- Thread starter
- Banned
- #94
Good grief.
As I've pointed out ad nauseum, those who support abortion see no value in human life, period. I like to think it's because their own lives have no meaning and no value.
But that's just me.
That is your first failure to issue a valid reply after the position has been clearly explained to you, Charlie Brown.
I see value in the life of a person, not necessarily value in any form of human life. On what grounds do you base your belief that human life is inherently superior to all forms of nonhuman animal life, even if that animal life has a greater level of awareness and a greater capacity to feel pain?
Agnapostate
Rookie
- Thread starter
- Banned
- #97
How the hell do you know it have a greater level of awareness and a greater capacity to feel pain?
you don't. You're just making stupid assumptions. Based upon your hatred of humans.
Are you a complete moron? Measurements of brain activity. And while a fetus may have some degree of brain activity, it is most certainly not self-aware, and while most nonhuman animals are not self-aware beings either, many have a greater degree of awareness than a fetus does.
Cecilie1200
Diamond Member
How the hell do you know it have a greater level of awareness and a greater capacity to feel pain?
you don't. You're just making stupid assumptions. Based upon your hatred of humans.
Do you ever wonder if these people actually THINK about what they're saying? They set up these arbitrary, joke boundaries for no other purpose than to permit them to do whatever selfish thing blows their skirts up for the moment, and never seem to consider how ridiculous they actually sound.
Who cares how much pain someone feels? What's that got to do with anything? Do I become less valuable as a living being when I'm under anesthetic because my capacity to feel pain has been reduced? I believe there's actually a neurological disorder in which the nerve endings do not report pain correctly, and so the sufferers have to carefully inventory their body parts for injuries every day, to avoid infections and gangrene from wounds they never knew they had, because it didn't hurt. Are THEY less valuable than regular humans because they have much less capacity to feel pain?
Greater awareness? So stupid people are less valuable than smart ones? At what IQ level do we decide it's okay to shoot 'em in the head? I know a lot of people favor aborting children with Down's Syndrome, but do they also think we should drown them like kittens if they happen to slip through the pre-natal screening process?
Do you ever wonder if these people actually THINK about what they're saying? They set up these arbitrary, joke boundaries for no other purpose than to permit them to do whatever selfish thing blows their skirts up for the moment, and never seem to consider how ridiculous they actually sound.
Who cares how much pain someone feels? What's that got to do with anything? Do I become less valuable as a living being when I'm under anesthetic because my capacity to feel pain has been reduced? I believe there's actually a neurological disorder in which the nerve endings do not report pain correctly, and so the sufferers have to carefully inventory their body parts for injuries every day, to avoid infections and gangrene from wounds they never knew they had, because it didn't hurt. Are THEY less valuable than regular humans because they have much less capacity to feel pain?
Greater awareness? So stupid people are less valuable than smart ones? At what IQ level do we decide it's okay to shoot 'em in the head? I know a lot of people favor aborting children with Down's Syndrome, but do they also think we should drown them like kittens if they happen to slip through the pre-natal screening process?
What a bunch of garbage. ... .how retarded of you to think other people should live their lives the way you do. Maybe if y'all didn't teach them "abstinence only" your babies wouldn't have babies....
Worry about your own house before you judge others. And the biggest joke is how self-satisfied and full of yourself you are when near as I can see, your life isn't exactly a road map for good judgment. .. certainly not good enough to be substituted for my own or anyone else's.
So save it for someone who buys what you're selling.
I think your statement is too generalized...though there may be some that may have no value for human life, no moreso than those that do not support legalized abortion but support other things that support the killing of humans....and the dehumanization of humans, like terms of acceptability like, "Collateral Damage" as the description of killing perfectly innocent, living and breathing, human beings.Good grief.
As I've pointed out ad nauseum, those who support abortion see no value in human life, period. I like to think it's because their own lives have no meaning and no value.
But that's just me.
I disagree with the premise of women who abort are just blood sucking, murderous, humans, and all of them devalue life and go on to killing their future born children!!!!
If Caley's mom did not want to have her, she could have and would have aborted her....she kept her, so your theory falls FLAT, imho.
Caley's mom, if she did kill her in cold blood, is just a cold blooded murderer...she did not abort Caley, so she probably is pro-life herself!
Now i don't know this though i can logically make the claim....even moreso than the claim you have made Allie, regarding abortion as being the cause of humans killing children, as Caley's mom, apparently did....
When you've got people like that woman that killed her 5 children by drowning them that was suffering from post partum depression....she was a PRO LIFE person Allie....
sooooooooo, basically, it appears, that you are just touting partisan rhetoric, instead of truth or even logical theories, imho!
anyway, that's my take on this!
love,
Care
Similar threads
- Replies
- 38
- Views
- 863
- Replies
- 135
- Views
- 1K
Latest Discussions
- Replies
- 136
- Views
- 882
- Replies
- 23
- Views
- 50
- Replies
- 110
- Views
- 825
Forum List
-
-
-
-
-
Political Satire 8029
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
ObamaCare 781
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Member Usernotes 468
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-