Final-Fan said:
Nirvana_Nut85 said:
Final-Fan said:
Nirvana_Nut85 said:
Final-Fan said:
Nirvana_Nut85 said:
akuma587 said:
Final-Fan said:
Nirvana_Nut85 said:
Pro Life and I'd like to quote something that I found very interesting while reading The Revolution: A Manifesto by Ron Paul
"People ask an expectant mother how her baby is doing. They do not ask her how her fetus is doing, or her blob of tissue, or her parasite. But that is what her baby becomes as soon as the child is declared unwanted. In both cases, we try to make human life into something less than human, simply according to our will." |
(A) Baby is a more natural word for most people to use in ordinary conversation
(B) This is not any kind of valid argument for the pro-life position, only a blatant stab at emotion |
Well said. |
Well said....not really. Try reading over his statement again and you'll find it does make sense, and is not a stab at emotion. It's a very logical way of putting it. How can one justify what form of life isn't important? In an abortion what alot of people don't seem to fully understand is that it's an actualy living human being inside the mother. So therefore to terminate the pregnancy they do have to kill the unborn child.
I just personally find it appualling how people can act as if its nothing and that because the child is unborn its life is meaningless, but thats just my opinion. |
His argument is just about semantics. Whether people ask a pregnant woman abot her "baby" or her "fetus" is utterly irrelevant to the factual question of whether the thing in question is a person or not. That is the debate worth having, not ranting about people making incorrect statements about a human body's stage of development.
The quote is just pro-life propaganda about what he sees as pro-choice propaganda, and not any actual argument about abortion at all. |
It does have relevence because the question is as Dr. Ron Paul stated we try to classify human life as irrelevant when it suits are own selfish need. Human life is still human life wether its a baby in it's mother's womb or someone like me and you. It's just as he stated when someone doesn't want the baby we use terms like fetus or tissue to attempt justify killing the baby inside when it's not wanted (or the candy coated term of terminating the pregnancy). |
You're missing the point and (to be fair) so, perhaps, was he.
If people really think of it explicitly as a baby until they decide to get rid of it, and then think of it as a mere lump of flesh, then sure, they're hypocrites. But that's in their own minds.
The object of their thoughts does not change based on their thoughts about it. Indeed, that's Ron Paul's entire point. So the question is, which is the correct view? Is it a tiny little person, or is it not a person yet? You're assuming one answer to this question, but the quoted material does nothing to prove this. |
Not trying to be rude here but the problem is that I don't think you fully understand what he's trying to say, but thats ok I'll try and be a little more clear if your having trouble understanding.
He was simply stating how in this society when a woman is pregnant people will ask her how's the baby coming along and refer to it as a baby, yet when a woman who gets pregnant and does not want the child, we act as if that baby is just a pile of tissue, a fetus(depending on the stage ect) to help us justify killing the baby inside when its not wanted.
You need to re-read what he said because I think your confusing yourself . It's not assuming an answer to any question because there was no question, but merely stating how people act as if human life is less human when it suits them. That is a fact with most people. |
I understand perfectly what he was trying to say. In fact I restated the same thing that you restated. If my restatement was substantially different from yours (except in the fact that it was couched inside an if/then construction as part of another point), then perhaps we actually do have a problem.
My point is that what he said is only an indictment of the hypocrites who do that. It says nothing to prove that they were right the first time -- that it actually is a baby (a person) instead of a bunch of developing human tissue that will someday become a person. What if they were right with their second belief? They're still hypocrites, but not murderers.
Yes, exactly. There is no question -- you're not even allowing the question to be asked, just making the assumption that the pro-life position is correct. To use this as a pro-life argument is massively begging the question. If you weren't intending to use this as a pro-life argument, but were merely preaching about people being hypocrites, then I'm sorry for assuming otherwise and please STFU.
|
