Runa216 said:
Calmador said:
Mr Khan said:
Calmador said:
I consider abortion murder.
I can't believe people don't see it... it puts me in awe that some how... tearing a child into pieces is so different from tearing a child into pieces when the child is the whom.
We live in a monstrous time.
So, I'm glad about this but this isn't enough.
|
The rationale for defining human life as "sacred and inviolable" should be Decartesian: Sentient thought or the capacity to do so is what separates us from the animals, humans incapable of doing so (note, the bar for sentience is decently low, so the mentally handicapped and toddlers still qualify) do not qualify for the same degree of consideration (note that this does not mean a total lack of consideration. All life deserves some respect, but all non-sentient life should ultimately be disposable if doing so is for the best)
|
No, its defined by God who gaves us souls (the breath of life) and a spirit to live. The baby is alive.
Also, nobody but God has the right to take away life so liberally. We have a right to take away life as a means of self-defence against evil actions against us. The baby is just there and no doubt.. has no evil intentions.
If the baby is dead. Only then its okay to remove the corspe.
|
Can you prove any of that? We live in the real world, where there's no proof of a god, or souls, or divine intervention. Until these things can be proven, can you keep them out of the argument?
|
You live in a world were more people believe in a God than don't. Can you prove otherwise? (Horrible argument by the way because it assumes conclusion without actually knowing the argument or addressing.Refering to "real world" argument.)
But on a point you made. Have you don't any research on arguments made by actual philosophiers or scientist. Because this response becomes nothing more than an argument from ignorance than cleaver remark.
On-topic: The bill seems decent. Will read more later.
