Abortion....According to KingRaw

Threedee said:
Well, Mr. Lucifer (BTW I hate you for being the Devil!), I actually oppose the Death Penalty, but I am also smart enough to know that it is not hypocritical to support infant life and oppose the life of a murderer...
Click to expand...

True Dat! I am not opposed to the death penalty and I am not opposed to states that chose not to have it and instead have life without possibility of parole. You are right, there is no hypocrisy to the two issues like some would like to make you think.
 
I oppose the Death Penalty strongly, but do know the difference between destroying innocence or guilt.
 
"I actually oppose the Death Penalty, but I am also smart enough to know that it is not hypocritical to support infant life and oppose the life of a murderer..."


Why? You are taking a life. Good or bad, it's still taking a life. You are deciding who lives and who dies. The Bible tells us to love our enemies. How is killing love?


"Raw you can't given anything objective to the debate. All your points are subjective based on really nothing other than personal preference with no real morals attached. You place the term "valuable" on nothing but your own personal speculations. I have yet to find the term "valuable" in any scientific terms for the unborn. You have not offered anything scientific to back up your claims. I have backed it up with CDC facts and embryology text books. You have used terms like "blob" and others have used terms like "tissue" to describe humans. You like most pro-choicers haver reduced human life to these kind of terms and that is the tragedy. You try to compare the the death penalty to abortion in hopes that it creates some kind of hypocrisy in order to distract from the issue even though the two are not the same. You also like to drag religion into the debate especially since you have such a BONE TO PICK with Bill Keller. You have invited me on to this message board in order not to be out numbered two to one and yet you still have nothing to offer.

Looking forward to you offering something objective and philosophically sound if you in fact can."


Whatever you say to feel better. I've already discussed how undeveloped fetuses are in early pregnancies. That's scientificly proven. I've given factual numbers that say an overwhelming majority of abortions occur before the brain is developed. Without a brain, you can't feel anything or be aware of your surroundings. I've discussed the reasons where abortion is the better decision, which you call a mere convenience. You have ignored some of my points and brought up arguments we already settled.


Let me ask you a question. Is the earth over 6000 years old? Is it at least 65 million years old?
 
Last edited:
KingRaw! said:
Actually, that was directed towards firemedic227.
Click to expand...
I know. But the way the question was phrased it seemed fun to answer it that way.

You should have said "only 6000 to 10000 years old." Everybody thinks the Earth is at least 6000 years old and leaving it open to interpretation opens it for 'fun' answers.
 
KingRaw! said:
Very well. I shall edit.
Click to expand...


King you offered nothing. You still offer nothing. Comments like "whatever makes you feel better" just proves it. You make comments like "scientist say" or whatever but you don't back it up with anything to prove your case. Whatever stage the abortion happens matters not because it is still a human that is killed and I can still back that quote up from embryology text books. As far as brain development I have shown your logic behind that to be lacking. One would assume by your comment that if someone has less of a "developed" brain than someone else then they have less rights to live. If that is the case then we should be able to kill the next person not as mentally developed as ourselves.
Then you try to distract the topic by asking dumb questions like "how old do you think the earth is?". Again, you can't win the topic logically, scientifically, or philisophically so you try to distract by bringing religion or such into it. If you studied as much as you obsess about Bill Keller you might be a genious.
 
The death penalty argument makes the least sense with liberals. It's ok to terminate your 4 week old fetus, but let's all protect murderers!
 
"King you offered nothing. You still offer nothing."


You're right. I offer absolutely nothing in the pro-choice argument. You got me there. End of debate.


Answer my question. Is the Earth over 65 million years old?
 
"You make comments like "scientist say" or whatever but you don't back it up with anything to prove your case."


You mean like the brain development stages? Or fetus development stages? I'm sure scientists disagree with me on those cases. I'm sure they'd say a 4 week old fetus is just as much developed as a 7 month old one, or a new born baby. I'm sure they'd disagree with me that you can't feel anything or be aware of anything without a developed brain. And I'm sure that all of my statistical numbers don't add up too. Good point.


"Whatever stage the abortion happens matters not because it is still a human that is killed and I can still back that quote up from embryology text books."


Wow, you can back up one claim. A claim that I don't disagree with. We all know that a 2 second old fetus is a human. Duh. So you yell at me when I don't use an argument that is backed up by scientists, but with a moral opinion?


"As far as brain development I have shown your logic behind that to be lacking. One would assume by your comment that if someone has less of a "developed" brain than someone else then they have less rights to live. If that is the case then we should be able to kill the next person not as mentally developed as ourselves."


You just did the same thing you yelled at me for! That is an opinion and a bad one at that. The fetus' brain hasn't fully developed yet. These people you are talking about have fully developed brains. You are completely throwing out my argument again. Once you reach a certain point of development, you have just as much right to life as anyone else not in a womb.


"Then you try to distract the topic by asking dumb questions like "how old do you think the earth is?". Again, you can't win the topic logically, scientifically, or philisophically so you try to distract by bringing religion or such into it. If you studied as much as you obsess about Bill Keller you might be a genious."


It's not a dumb question. You talk about how you back up your claims with science. But what happens when you can't? Like the age of the earth.
 
Once again you say "at a certain stage the fetus has as of a right to live". Pinpoint that stage if it is "certain". Exactly when would that be for you since you used the word "certain"? That would be like trying to say where a whisker ends and a beard begins. On a serious note I see that your argument again has to do with the stage of development that gives a person to live. True, embryos and fetuses are less developed than you and I. But again, why is this relevant? Four year-old girls are less developed than 14 year-old ones. Should older children have more rights than their younger siblings? Some people say that self-awareness makes one valuable. But if that is true, newborns do not qualify as valuable human beings. Six-week old infants lack the immediate capacity for performing human mental functions, as do the reversibly comatose, the sleeping, and those with Alzheimer’s Disease. Fact is embryos are humans as you stated.
 
Just in case you decide to show up again, I'll dig up this thread.


Let me put this in words you can understand.


Somewhere around the 7 month age of the fetus, I'd say it's valued life. From that point on, it should be just as much valued as any other human being whether it's a 3 year old or a 30 year old. FROM THE POINT I LISTED, IT BECOMES VALUED LIFE AND REMAINS VALUED LIFE! STOP GOING AROUND IN CIRCLES WITH THAT LAME ARGUMENT BECAUSE I ALREADY TOLD YOU WHERE I THINK VALUED LIFE BEGINS!


I don't know how old the earth is. Do I feel like it is 65 million? There is as much controversy about that as there is global warming but I don't think it is only 6,000 like some suggest.


You do realize that global warming is accepted by the vast majority of respected scientists don't you? So comparing the controversy of the earth's age to the global warming is like saying the radical evangelical's take on the earth's age is laughable to science.
 
actually, adam was formed by God out of dust....legs arms head body etc....but adam did not have ''life'' until God breathed into his nostrills and adam took his first breath....why is it that the Bible gives this as the instance of ''life'' as a human....taking your first breath?
 
Care4all said:
actually, adam was formed by God out of dust....legs arms head body etc....but adam did not have ''life'' until God breathed into his nostrills and adam took his first breath....why is it that the Bible gives this as the instance of ''life'' as a human....taking your first breath?
Click to expand...
And yet John the Baptist celebrated upon meeting Jesus while both were in the womb...

Hmmm... recognition and excitement all while still in the womb... It doesn't seem as if the Bible rejects life in the womb.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top