Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Perfect example of why idiots ruin threads.Actually admitting that people won't drop the "murder" thing, despite it having NOTHING to do with the thread.
-AC
just stating what I know. You will never be able to stop people that believe that to stop believing it.
is it comprehensible.....
Originally posted by powerfulone1987
just stating what I know. You will never be able to stop people that believe that to stop believing it.is it comprehensible.....
What about...if you factually demonstrate what murder is, and why abortion is not...no, it doesn't work, does it?
Wilful stupidity is the worst side-effect of the ego.
Yeah it is, b/c what they think amounts to nothing when you look at the big picture.
Well, actually when you look at the small picture also.
What matters to me is what I think and know for myself, not what they think is fact.
That's the problem, people not being able to differentiate between fact and opinion.
Learned that in Primary School.
is it comprehensible.....
Originally posted by powerfulone1987
What matters to me is what I think and know for myself, not what they think is fact.
That's the problem, people not being able to differentiate between fact and opinion.
But I don't quite understand. There are some things that are facts, and if you think differently, then that is wrong. There is no such thing as something that is a fact but people having different opinions on it. That simply means that a person is too narrow-minded to see that they are wrong...
Originally posted by crazylozer
But I don't quite understand. There are some things that are facts, and if you think differently, then that is wrong. There is no such thing as something that is a fact but people having different opinions on it. That simply means that a person is too narrow-minded to see that they are wrong...
But we are not narrow minded. We both believe that abortion is wrong, we believe it is murder. We are entitled to believe that, whether you, or anyone else believes otherwise. It's just an opinion, and we can hold that opinion. It isn't fair that people can tell us that our opinion is wrong, because if you say that, whats the point in us having an opinion in the first place?
Originally posted by Makedde
Murder is a legal term, yes, but it doesn't mean that people can't think that it IS murder.
Originally posted by powerfulone1987
What matters to me is what I think and know for myself, not what they think is fact.
That's the problem, people not being able to differentiate between fact and opinion.
Originally posted by crazylozer
But I don't quite understand. There are some things that are facts, and if you think differently, then that is wrong. There is no such thing as something that is a fact but people having different opinions on it. That simply means that a person is too narrow-minded to see that they are wrong...
Originally posted by Makedde
But we are not narrow minded. We both believe that abortion is wrong, we believe it is murder. We are entitled to believe that, whether you, or anyone else believes otherwise. It's just an opinion, and we can hold that opinion. It isn't fair that people can tell us that our opinion is wrong, because if you say that, whats the point in us having an opinion in the first place?
Noone is saying you can't believe it's wrong. You, however, don't have the right to make someone else abide by your beliefs. It's their choice and not yours.
Originally posted by crazylozer
But I don't quite understand. There are some things that are facts, and if you think differently, then that is wrong. There is no such thing as something that is a fact but people having different opinions on it. That simply means that a person is too narrow-minded to see that they are wrong...
So make up your mind Styletime. Don't agree or disagree based on who posted.
Like I've been saying, it all depends on who posted what in which way one responds to another's post.
And know I can differentiate, it's you and others who can't.
is it comprehensible.....
Originally posted by StyleTimeNoone is saying you can't believe it's wrong. You, however, don't have the right to make someone else abide by your beliefs. It's their choice and not yours.
is it comprehensible.....
Originally posted by powerfulone1987
it is realized right that this is basically what I said formed a different way.So make up your mind Styletime. Don't agree or disagree based on who posted.
Like I've been saying, it all depends on who posted what in which way one responds to another's post.
And know I can differentiate, it's you and others who can't.
is it comprehensible.....
Originally posted by powerfulone1987
you and others in here really need to read this and repeat it over and over to yourselves, you hypocrite.is it comprehensible.....
Stop making personal insults to cover up the fact that you are wrong. You have no right to tell people what to control what people do with their bodies when it doesn't infringe upon your well being.
I propose then, that we grant that the fetus is a person from the moment of conception. How does the argument go from here? Something like this, I take it:
Every person has a right to life, so the fetus has a right to life. No doubt the mother has a right to decide what shall happen in and to her body, everyone would grant that. But surely, a person's right to life is stronger and more stringent than the mother's right to decide what happens in and to her body, and so outweighs it. So the fetus may not be killed, an abortion may not be performed.
It sounds plausible, but now let me ask you to imagine this:
You wake up in the morning and find yourself back-to-back in bed with an unconscious violinist... a famous unconscious violinist. He has been found to have a fatal kidney ailment, and the Society of Music Lovers has canvassed all the available medical records and found that you alone have the right blood type to help. Therefore, they have kidnapped you, and last night, the violinist's circulatory system was plugged into yours so that your kidneys can be used to extract poisons from his blood as well as your own.
The director of the hospital now tells you, "Look, we're sorry the Society of Music Lovers did this to you, we would never have permitted it if we had known. But still, they did it, and the violinist now is plugged into you. To unplug you would be to kill him. But never mind, it's only for nine months, by then he will have recovered from his ailment, and can safely be unplugged from you."
Is it morally incumbent on you to accede to this situation? No doubt it would be very nice of you if you did, a great kindness. But do you have to accede to it? What if it were not nine months, but nine years? Or longer still?
What if the director of the hospital says, "Tough luck, I agree, but now you've got to stay in bed with the violinist plugged into you for the rest of your life, because remember this: All persons have a right to life, and violinists are persons. Granted you have a right to decide what happens in and to your body, but a person's right to life outweighs your right to decide what happens in and to your body, so you cannot ever be unplugged from him."
I imagine you would regard this as outrageous, which suggests that something really is wrong with that plausible sounding argument I mentioned a moment ago.
Originally posted by StyleTime
I agreed based on the content of the post.I obviously know what I wrote. I am not the one forcing my belief on others. Legal abortion doesn't make anyone who doesn't agree with abortion get one now does it?
Stop making personal insults to cover up the fact that you are wrong. You have no right to tell people what to control what people do with their bodies when it doesn't infringe upon your well being.
Put words in my mouth all you want. Just make sure you put words back in your own mouth to respond or it will be a quick and painless conversation my friend....the best kind.
oh yeah, and learn what a personal insult is please.
is it comprehensible.....
Originally posted by Adam_PoE
I propose then, that we grant that the fetus is a person from the moment of conception. How does the argument go from here? Something like this, I take it. Every person has a right to life, so the fetus has a right to life. No doubt the mother has a right to decide what shall happen in and to her body, everyone would grant that. But surely, a person's right to life is stronger and more stringent than the mother's right to decide what happens in and to her body, and so outweighs it. So the fetus may not be killed, an abortion may not be performed.It sounds plausible, but now let me ask you to imagine this: You wake up in the morning and find yourself back-to-back in bed with an unconscious violinist, a famous unconscious violinist. He has been found to have a fatal kidney ailment, and the Society of Music Lovers has canvassed all the available medical records and found that you alone have the right blood type to help. They have therefore kidnapped you, and last night, the violinist's circulatory system was plugged into yours so that your kidneys can be used to extract poisons from his blood as well as your own.
The director of the hospital now tells you, "Look, we're sorry the Society of Music Lovers did this to you. We would never have permitted it if we had known. But still, they did it, and the violinist now is plugged into you. To unplug you would be to kill him. But never mind, it's only for nine months. By then he will have recovered from his ailment, and can safely be unplugged from you."
Is it morally incumbent on you to accede to this situation? No doubt it would be very nice of you if you did, a great kindness. But do you have to accede to it? What if it were not nine months, but nine years? Or longer still?
What if the director of the hospital says, "Tough luck, I agree, but you've now got to stay in bed with the violinist plugged into you for the rest of your life, because remember this: All persons have a right to life, and violinists are persons. Granted you have a right to decide what happens in and to your body, but a person's right to life outweighs your right to decide what happens in and to your body, so you cannot ever be unplugged from him."
I imagine you would regard this as outrageous, which suggests that something really is wrong with that plausible sounding argument I mentioned a moment ago.
i really must say something on this however little.
At which point did this person being plugged up to this violinist become responsible for the state that this violinist is in?
Exactly.
People bring people into the world and are responsible for it.
People don't cause violinist to become infected with poison therefore causing them to have to plug into another human being to survive.
is it comprehensible.....