Evidence for God from Science

PaulSacramento wrote: ↑Wed Mar 27, 2019 11:58 am Actually, no I don't agree.

PaulSacramento wrote: ↑Wed Mar 27, 2019 11:58 amI can see the distinction of course BUT if we take the view that, taking a life, any life, requires justification, then ANY life we KNOWINGLY terminate requires a justification.

PaulSacramento wrote: ↑Wed Mar 27, 2019 11:58 amNow, there are certainly degrees of justification and I don't think it does THIS argument any good ( one way or the other) , to address this in particular ( the ALL life thing).

PaulSacramento wrote: ↑Wed Mar 27, 2019 11:58 amLook, speaking of taking a life, a HUMAN life only in this thread, IF someone does NOT need to justify the taking of life, then where are we?

Charles Manson was able to justify every single one of his killings. Most murderers can do this. Does that make it okay since they are able to justify it?

It leaves us with the ability to know the difference between taking the life of a cockroach vs the life of an innocent human being.

PaulSacramento wrote: ↑Thu Mar 28, 2019 4:57 am

Charles Manson was able to justify every single one of his killings. Most murderers can do this. Does that make it okay since they are able to justify it?

That's your "litmus test" ?
A psychopath?
What's next, Nazi's?

Dude...

Kenny wrote: ↑Thu Mar 28, 2019 5:49 am

PaulSacramento wrote: ↑Thu Mar 28, 2019 4:57 am

Charles Manson was able to justify every single one of his killings. Most murderers can do this. Does that make it okay since they are able to justify it?

That's your "litmus test" ?
A psychopath?
What's next, Nazi's?

Dude...

Litmus test? Who said anything about a litmus test?? I was pointing out the flaw in your claim that it's okay to kill people as long as you can justify it.

Re: Abortion Debate
#4 Post by PaulSacramento » Wed Mar 06, 2019 1:50 pm
When you make the taking of a life about choice, then where do you stop?

At best, the taking of a life MUST be justified.
It will never be right, BUT it can be justified.

Thing is, the majority of people on both sides ( minus the extremists of course), would agree with abortion under certain select circumstances ( typically, rape, the life of the mother being in danger).

PaulSacramento wrote: ↑Thu Mar 28, 2019 7:27 am

Kenny wrote: ↑Thu Mar 28, 2019 5:49 am

PaulSacramento wrote: ↑Thu Mar 28, 2019 4:57 am

Charles Manson was able to justify every single one of his killings. Most murderers can do this. Does that make it okay since they are able to justify it?

That's your "litmus test" ?
A psychopath?
What's next, Nazi's?

Dude...

Litmus test? Who said anything about a litmus test?? I was pointing out the flaw in your claim that it's okay to kill people as long as you can justify it.

No, Kenny, it is never OK to kill people.
Taking a life is objectively wrong.
As I stated here:

Re: Abortion Debate
#4 Post by PaulSacramento » Wed Mar 06, 2019 1:50 pm
When you make the taking of a life about choice, then where do you stop?

At best, the taking of a life MUST be justified.
It will never be right, BUT it can be justified.

Thing is, the majority of people on both sides ( minus the extremists of course), would agree with abortion under certain select circumstances ( typically, rape, the life of the mother being in danger).

It CAN be justified, but it is never right.

What we have been discussing is WHAT justifies taking a life and, so far, the only agreement is in protection of another life, right?

Then you addressed insects and animals ( for whatever reason in a debate about abortion), and I replied that, yes, even taking those lives should be justified.

PaulSacramento wrote: ↑Fri Mar 29, 2019 12:05 pm Let me put it this way:
Is stealing to feed your children morally right?
Is it justified?

Kenny wrote: ↑Fri Mar 29, 2019 1:20 pm

PaulSacramento wrote: ↑Fri Mar 29, 2019 12:05 pm Let me put it this way:
Is stealing to feed your children morally right?
Is it justified?

In my book, if it's justified, it's morally right. But I've got a feeling you see justified as having to do with what is legal and morality right as what is fair; is this a correct assumption?

Nicki wrote: ↑Fri Mar 29, 2019 8:07 pm

Kenny wrote: ↑Fri Mar 29, 2019 1:20 pm

PaulSacramento wrote: ↑Fri Mar 29, 2019 12:05 pm Let me put it this way:
Is stealing to feed your children morally right?
Is it justified?

In my book, if it's justified, it's morally right. But I've got a feeling you see justified as having to do with what is legal and morality right as what is fair; is this a correct assumption?

The stealing would still be illegal, so I don't think he sees justification as to do with legality.

PaulSacramento wrote: ↑Mon Mar 25, 2019 5:22 am In regards to abortion, the debate is actually quite simple:
What is the JUSTIFICATION for taking a life.

To be terminate a pregnancy means to take a life ( if it wasn't alive then you wouldn't need to terminate it, i.e. kill it).

So, putting aside right and wrong since we can justify a wrong act ( stealing to feed is wrong, but justified, killing someone to save a life is wrong, but justified).

What is the justification for taking a life?

Nils wrote: ↑Sun Mar 31, 2019 3:06 am

PaulSacramento wrote: ↑Mon Mar 25, 2019 5:22 am In regards to abortion, the debate is actually quite simple:
What is the JUSTIFICATION for taking a life.

To be terminate a pregnancy means to take a life ( if it wasn't alive then you wouldn't need to terminate it, i.e. kill it).

So, putting aside right and wrong since we can justify a wrong act ( stealing to feed is wrong, but justified, killing someone to save a life is wrong, but justified).

What is the justification for taking a life?

I think it just complicates matter talking about “justification”. It is enough to talk about morally right and wrong and legally right and wrong.

So I ask: Why are the parents morally wrong if they decide to kill a young fetus (say less than 22 week old)?

I have noticed some arguments in the debate here but I don’t think that they are are valid:

1. The slippery slope argument.
If that was valid it would have been noted in countries where abortion of young fetuses is permitted but I have never heard of that.
2. The fetus suffers when aborted.
Young fetuses don’t feel pain even if the nervous system is in place. The cognitive capabilities in the brain don’t exist yet. As someone said, the signal to the bell is there but nobody is at home.
3. The young fetus has lot of functions and organs that human beings have.
Even small mammals have these features and, what is more important, small fetuses don’t have all the capabilities of even small mammals as feelings, memory and elementary consciousness not to talk about the full consciousness of adult human beings.
4. Small fetuses look like humans. That may be true but what’s the significance? Even ape fetuses look like humans.

What remains is
5. It IS wrong to abort young fetuses!
But this is not an argument, only an ungrounded statement.

So again: What IS the argument?


(In the OP there is a reference to The Abortion Debate – Dr. Willie Parker vs Dr. Mike Adams
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lTIpSmz ... e=youtu.be.
The argument from Adams is mainly the argument 5. above as far as I can see.
Ben Shapiro argues against abortion and uses a mixture of the arguments above but expresses all the time argument 5 without any motivation.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RDmwPGrZkYs
Admittedly they also argue against late abortion which I think is much more difficult to defend. That is about aborting fetuses that have cognitiv capabilities and are can survive outside the womb. )

Nils

RickD wrote: ↑Sun Mar 31, 2019 6:31 am

Nils wrote: ↑Sun Mar 31, 2019 3:06 am

PaulSacramento wrote: ↑Mon Mar 25, 2019 5:22 am In regards to abortion, the debate is actually quite simple:
What is the JUSTIFICATION for taking a life.

To be terminate a pregnancy means to take a life ( if it wasn't alive then you wouldn't need to terminate it, i.e. kill it).

So, putting aside right and wrong since we can justify a wrong act ( stealing to feed is wrong, but justified, killing someone to save a life is wrong, but justified).

What is the justification for taking a life?

I think it just complicates matter talking about “justification”. It is enough to talk about morally right and wrong and legally right and wrong.

So I ask: Why are the parents morally wrong if they decide to kill a young fetus (say less than 22 week old)?

I have noticed some arguments in the debate here but I don’t think that they are are valid:

1. The slippery slope argument.
If that was valid it would have been noted in countries where abortion of young fetuses is permitted but I have never heard of that.
2. The fetus suffers when aborted.
Young fetuses don’t feel pain even if the nervous system is in place. The cognitive capabilities in the brain don’t exist yet. As someone said, the signal to the bell is there but nobody is at home.
3. The young fetus has lot of functions and organs that human beings have.
Even small mammals have these features and, what is more important, small fetuses don’t have all the capabilities of even small mammals as feelings, memory and elementary consciousness not to talk about the full consciousness of adult human beings.
4. Small fetuses look like humans. That may be true but what’s the significance? Even ape fetuses look like humans.

What remains is
5. It IS wrong to abort young fetuses!
But this is not an argument, only an ungrounded statement.

So again: What IS the argument?


(In the OP there is a reference to The Abortion Debate – Dr. Willie Parker vs Dr. Mike Adams
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lTIpSmz ... e=youtu.be.
The argument from Adams is mainly the argument 5. above as far as I can see.
Ben Shapiro argues against abortion and uses a mixture of the arguments above but expresses all the time argument 5 without any motivation.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RDmwPGrZkYs
Admittedly they also argue against late abortion which I think is much more difficult to defend. That is about aborting fetuses that have cognitiv capabilities and are can survive outside the womb. )

Nils

It's not complicated, Nils. It's wrong to kill an unborn human being, because it's wrong to kill any human being, except in certain circumstances, such as self defense, or if the person is threatening another person.

Kenny wrote: ↑Sun Mar 31, 2019 7:07 am

RickD wrote: ↑Sun Mar 31, 2019 6:31 am

Nils wrote: ↑Sun Mar 31, 2019 3:06 am

PaulSacramento wrote: ↑Mon Mar 25, 2019 5:22 am In regards to abortion, the debate is actually quite simple:
What is the JUSTIFICATION for taking a life.

To be terminate a pregnancy means to take a life ( if it wasn't alive then you wouldn't need to terminate it, i.e. kill it).

So, putting aside right and wrong since we can justify a wrong act ( stealing to feed is wrong, but justified, killing someone to save a life is wrong, but justified).

What is the justification for taking a life?

I think it just complicates matter talking about “justification”. It is enough to talk about morally right and wrong and legally right and wrong.

So I ask: Why are the parents morally wrong if they decide to kill a young fetus (say less than 22 week old)?

I have noticed some arguments in the debate here but I don’t think that they are are valid:

1. The slippery slope argument.
If that was valid it would have been noted in countries where abortion of young fetuses is permitted but I have never heard of that.
2. The fetus suffers when aborted.
Young fetuses don’t feel pain even if the nervous system is in place. The cognitive capabilities in the brain don’t exist yet. As someone said, the signal to the bell is there but nobody is at home.
3. The young fetus has lot of functions and organs that human beings have.
Even small mammals have these features and, what is more important, small fetuses don’t have all the capabilities of even small mammals as feelings, memory and elementary consciousness not to talk about the full consciousness of adult human beings.
4. Small fetuses look like humans. That may be true but what’s the significance? Even ape fetuses look like humans.

What remains is
5. It IS wrong to abort young fetuses!
But this is not an argument, only an ungrounded statement.

So again: What IS the argument?


(In the OP there is a reference to The Abortion Debate – Dr. Willie Parker vs Dr. Mike Adams
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lTIpSmz ... e=youtu.be.
The argument from Adams is mainly the argument 5. above as far as I can see.
Ben Shapiro argues against abortion and uses a mixture of the arguments above but expresses all the time argument 5 without any motivation.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RDmwPGrZkYs
Admittedly they also argue against late abortion which I think is much more difficult to defend. That is about aborting fetuses that have cognitiv capabilities and are can survive outside the womb. )

Nils

It's not complicated, Nils. It's wrong to kill an unborn human being, because it's wrong to kill any human being, except in certain circumstances, such as self defense, or if the person is threatening another person.

I believe many argue that though it is wrong to kill a person, the fetus isn't a person yet.

a human being regarded as an individual.