Members banned from this thread: zaangalewa


Page 12 of 17 FirstFirst ... 21011121314 ... LastLast
Results 111 to 120 of 165
Thanks Tree82Thanks

Thread: God actually likes abortion...

  1. #111
    Veteran Member Pragmatist's Avatar
    Joined
    Nov 2006
    Posts
    49,287
    Thanks
    14707

    Quote Originally Posted by kingrat View Post
    https://www.thenewatlantis.com/publi...ns-and-embryos

    At the core of Sandel’s argument is an analogy:

    although every oak tree was once an acorn, it does not follow that acorns are oak trees, or that I should treat the loss of an acorn eaten by a squirrel in my front yard as the same kind of loss as the death of an oak tree felled by a storm. Despite their developmental continuity, acorns and oak trees are different kinds of things.

    ...

    Sandel’s argument begins to go awry with his choice of analogates. The acorn is analogous to the embryo and the oak tree (he says) is analogous to the “human being.” But in view of the developmental continuity that Sandel rightly concedes, surely the proper analogate of the oak tree is the mature human being, i.e., the adult. Of course, Sandel’s analogy has its force because we really do feel a sense of loss when a mature oak is felled. But while it is true that we do not feel the same sense of loss at the destruction of an acorn, it is also true that we do not feel the same sense of loss at the destruction of an oak sapling. (Indeed, our reaction to the destruction of a sapling is much more like our reaction to the destruction of an acorn than it is like our reaction to the destruction of a mature oak.) But clearly the oak tree does not differ in kind from the oak sapling. This shows that we value oak trees not because of the kind of entity they are, but rather because of their magnificence. Neither acorns nor saplings are magnificent, so we do not experience a sense of loss when they are destroyed.

    ...

    Sandel’s claim that human embryos are not human beings, or not “full human beings,” or merely “potential human life,” simply cannot be squared with the facts of human embryogenesis and developmental biology. Briefly, modern embryology shows the following: (1) The embryo is from the start distinct from any cell of the mother or the father, for it is growing in its own distinct direction and its growth is internally directed to its own survival and maturation. (2) The embryo is human, since it has the genetic constitution and epigenetic primordia characteristic of human beings. (3) Most importantly, the embryo is a complete or whole organism, though immature. From conception onward, the human embryo is fully programmed, and has the active disposition, to develop himself or herself to the next mature stage of a human being. And unless prevented by disease, violence, or a hostile environment, the embryo will actually do so, despite possibly significant variation in its circumstances (i.e., in the mother’s womb). None of the changes that occur to the embryo after fertilization, for as long as he or she survives, generates a new direction of growth. Rather, all of the changes (for example those involving nutrition and environment) either facilitate or retard the internally directed growth of this persisting individual.

    Come back to me when you've gotten a high school education.
    So you think posting someone else's words makes you right? Whether or not an embryo is programmed to develop into a human being doesn't mean an embryo is a human being.
    Thanks from Isalexi

  2. #112
    Senior Member Loki's Avatar
    Joined
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    10,193
    Thanks
    3842

    From
    East coast USA
    As if anyone knows what a nothing could produce.

    I call BULLSHIT, ever since that fiction was written by man everyone has gone mad trying to be the favorite of no one there.
    Thanks from Puzzling Evidence

  3. #113
    SPOCK! Puzzling Evidence's Avatar
    Joined
    Mar 2015
    Posts
    21,155
    Thanks
    9056

    From
    Away from sharp objects>
    This thread has become the gold standard of PH.

    Too bad gold is such an outdated form of currency. could you imagine buying a house with it?

  4. #114
    Veteran Member Isalexi's Avatar
    Joined
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    34,922
    Thanks
    21826

    From
    Maryland
    Quote Originally Posted by kingrat View Post
    https://www.thenewatlantis.com/publi...ns-and-embryos

    At the core of Sandel’s argument is an analogy:

    although every oak tree was once an acorn, it does not follow that acorns are oak trees, or that I should treat the loss of an acorn eaten by a squirrel in my front yard as the same kind of loss as the death of an oak tree felled by a storm. Despite their developmental continuity, acorns and oak trees are different kinds of things.

    ...

    Sandel’s argument begins to go awry with his choice of analogates. The acorn is analogous to the embryo and the oak tree (he says) is analogous to the “human being.” But in view of the developmental continuity that Sandel rightly concedes, surely the proper analogate of the oak tree is the mature human being, i.e., the adult. Of course, Sandel’s analogy has its force because we really do feel a sense of loss when a mature oak is felled. But while it is true that we do not feel the same sense of loss at the destruction of an acorn, it is also true that we do not feel the same sense of loss at the destruction of an oak sapling. (Indeed, our reaction to the destruction of a sapling is much more like our reaction to the destruction of an acorn than it is like our reaction to the destruction of a mature oak.) But clearly the oak tree does not differ in kind from the oak sapling. This shows that we value oak trees not because of the kind of entity they are, but rather because of their magnificence. Neither acorns nor saplings are magnificent, so we do not experience a sense of loss when they are destroyed.

    ...

    Sandel’s claim that human embryos are not human beings, or not “full human beings,” or merely “potential human life,” simply cannot be squared with the facts of human embryogenesis and developmental biology. Briefly, modern embryology shows the following: (1) The embryo is from the start distinct from any cell of the mother or the father, for it is growing in its own distinct direction and its growth is internally directed to its own survival and maturation. (2) The embryo is human, since it has the genetic constitution and epigenetic primordia characteristic of human beings. (3) Most importantly, the embryo is a complete or whole organism, though immature. From conception onward, the human embryo is fully programmed, and has the active disposition, to develop himself or herself to the next mature stage of a human being. And unless prevented by disease, violence, or a hostile environment, the embryo will actually do so, despite possibly significant variation in its circumstances (i.e., in the mother’s womb). None of the changes that occur to the embryo after fertilization, for as long as he or she survives, generates a new direction of growth. Rather, all of the changes (for example those involving nutrition and environment) either facilitate or retard the internally directed growth of this persisting individual.

    Come back to me when you've gotten a high school education.
    I learned in third grade that if you plant an acorn it will develop to the next stage… Of an oak tree
    Same with a human zygote ..it will develop into a person if you allow it to remain I planted. Come back when you hit fourth grade and you understand that attributing emotions to make your argument is not valid.
    Thanks from Panzareta

  5. #115
    Council Member Djinn's Avatar
    Joined
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    45,937
    Thanks
    30307

    From
    Pennsylvania, USA
    Quote Originally Posted by kingrat View Post
    Sanger's brand of eugenics isn't targeting people by race, as hitler's did. She is targeting the poor. It just so happens that the ranks of the poor was/is populated by ethnic minorities. But make no mistake -- sanger's brand of eugenics is a more effective and sustainable plan than hitler's could ever be.
    And that said: Margaret Sanger's misguided notions about race still have no bearing on today's Planned Parenthood. On the contrary, the pro-life effort is targeting the poor. Consider that abortion will NEVER be illegal throughout the United States. In the extremely unlikely event that Roe vs Wade is ever overturned, legalization will revert to the states, some of which will legalize abortion. Therefore, safe and legal abortion will ALWAYS be available to to the wealthy. The goal of the pro-life movement is to ensure that poor people lack access.

    Go ahead and tell me that's not "targeting the poor." And unlike Margaret Sanger, the pro-life movement is doing this TODAY; not 90-100 years ago.
    Last edited by Djinn; 14th March 2018 at 04:09 AM.
    Thanks from Isalexi and Ian Jeffrey

  6. #116
    Council Member Djinn's Avatar
    Joined
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    45,937
    Thanks
    30307

    From
    Pennsylvania, USA
    Quote Originally Posted by Isalexi View Post
    I learned in third grade that if you plant an acorn it will develop to the next stage… Of an oak tree ...
    Technically, you don't need someone to plant the acorn. Left on the ground, the natural forces of nature are often enough to allow the acorn to germinate.
    Thanks from Ian Jeffrey

  7. #117
    Veteran Member Isalexi's Avatar
    Joined
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    34,922
    Thanks
    21826

    From
    Maryland
    Quote Originally Posted by Djinn View Post
    Technically, you don't need someone to plant the acorn. Left on the ground, the natural forces of nature are often enough to allow the acorn to germinate.
    Really? I’m going to put one in a flower pot without soil and watch it germinate . If a zygote is left in a woman’s body it will also develop naturally
    I didn’t mean the literal “you’

  8. #118
    Established Member
    Joined
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    7,099
    Thanks
    307

    From
    Irrelevant
    Quote Originally Posted by Pragmatist View Post
    So you think posting someone else's words makes you right? Whether or not an embryo is programmed to develop into a human being doesn't mean an embryo is a human being.
    Didn't anyone educate you? There is no room for any doubt. As far as biology is concerned, a human embryo is already a human being.

    From the article I posted:

    (1) The embryo is from the start distinct from any cell of the mother or the father, for it is growing in its own distinct direction and its growth is internally directed to its own survival and maturation. (2) The embryo is human, since it has the genetic constitution and epigenetic primordia characteristic of human beings. (3) Most importantly, the embryo is a complete or whole organism, though immature.

    Uhmmm....duh?

  9. #119
    Established Member
    Joined
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    7,099
    Thanks
    307

    From
    Irrelevant
    Quote Originally Posted by Isalexi View Post
    I learned in third grade that if you plant an acorn it will develop to the next stage… Of an oak tree
    But you said it in your post -- an acorn, like the embryo, is not alive. Clearly, you didn't learn that particular lesson in third grade.

    Quote Originally Posted by Isalexi View Post
    Same with a human zygote ..it will develop into a person if you allow it to remain I planted.
    No. It is already a person.

    A human zygote is an organism of the genus homo species sapiens, hence a human being. That is a well-established scientific fact. And a natural person is a human being.

    Therefore, a human zygote is a person.

    What part of that logical commutation didn't you understand, hmmm?

    Quote Originally Posted by Isalexi View Post
    Come back when you hit fourth grade and you understand that attributing emotions to make your argument is not valid.
    Actually, everything I said is based on scientific facts. It is you who are indulging in emotional hand-wringing.

  10. #120
    Established Member
    Joined
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    7,099
    Thanks
    307

    From
    Irrelevant
    Quote Originally Posted by Djinn View Post
    And that said: Margaret Sanger's misguided notions about race still have no bearing on today's Planned Parenthood. On the contrary, the pro-life effort is targeting the poor. Consider that abortion will NEVER be illegal throughout the United States. In the extremely unlikely event that Roe vs Wade is ever overturned, legalization will revert to the states, some of which will legalize abortion. Therefore, safe and legal abortion will ALWAYS be available to to the wealthy. The goal of the pro-life movement is to ensure that poor people lack access.

    Go ahead and tell me that's not "targeting the poor." And unlike Margaret Sanger, the pro-life movement is doing this TODAY; not 90-100 years ago.
    Sanger's solution to eliminate poverty is to dissuade the poor from having children. It doesn't solve poverty. It merely eradicates poor people. And unlike hitler, who forcibly sterilized undesirable races en mass, sanger's innovation is to dupe poor people into consenting to being sterilized freely.

    That is what I mean by negative eugenics targeting the poor.

    Today, planned parenthood doesn't even bother with the moral charade. You can have an abortion on the grounds of mere convenience.

    I do not know what pro-life advocates do in the us. What I do know is that responsibility for the consequence is required in the exercise of freedom. And when I say responsibility, I mean the ability to respond to a situation in a moral manner.

    When one may terminate pregnancy on mere convenience, why not donate embryonic stem cells? And when you can donate embryonic cells on a whim, why not produce them in an assembly line. And if one could invent a reason for dehumanizing what is clearly a human being, why not invent the same for retarded or impaired people?

Page 12 of 17 FirstFirst ... 21011121314 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 43
    Last Post: 16th October 2017, 03:53 PM
  2. Abortion pill now rivals ABORTION as method used by American women!
    By cpicturetaker12 in forum Current Events
    Replies: 43
    Last Post: 31st October 2016, 02:20 PM
  3. Replies: 45
    Last Post: 23rd March 2013, 09:30 PM
  4. Replies: 2
    Last Post: 24th February 2013, 09:04 AM
  5. Replies: 28
    Last Post: 17th March 2010, 07:03 AM

Tags for this Thread


Facebook Twitter RSS Feed