Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,819 Year: 3,076/9,624 Month: 921/1,588 Week: 104/223 Day: 2/13 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Dawkins and "The Great Tim Tebow Fallacy" (re: pro-life advertisement)
greyseal
Member (Idle past 3862 days)
Posts: 464
Joined: 08-11-2009


Message 91 of 167 (546472)
02-11-2010 4:12 AM
Reply to: Message 67 by Hyroglyphx
02-09-2010 2:08 PM


Re: Playing the Devil's Advocate
Sneaky? It has been a law in 34 separate states, not to mention the very open Unborn Victims of Violence Act. Is that 35 instances of sneaky lobbying?
given that it's such a topic for a very vocal minority and something that, like you say, most people don't on the surface disagree with, would you really be surprised?
did you look at who was behind it?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 67 by Hyroglyphx, posted 02-09-2010 2:08 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 92 of 167 (546507)
02-11-2010 10:20 AM
Reply to: Message 87 by Straggler
02-10-2010 3:48 PM


Re: "Human"
If they think unborn conceptuses are genuine human beings then they should be advocating that medical resources are directed to saving the most human lives. No?
Other pro-lifers advocate just letting nature take its course.
So they would be against artificial abortion while not being for preventing natural abortions.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 87 by Straggler, posted 02-10-2010 3:48 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 93 by onifre, posted 02-11-2010 1:09 PM New Cat's Eye has replied
 Message 94 by Straggler, posted 02-11-2010 1:26 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
onifre
Member (Idle past 2951 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 93 of 167 (546530)
02-11-2010 1:09 PM
Reply to: Message 92 by New Cat's Eye
02-11-2010 10:20 AM


Re: "Human"
So they would be against artificial abortion while not being for preventing natural abortions.
Then how does that make them pro-life? Seem like they're just pro-controlling what people do.
- Oni

This message is a reply to:
 Message 92 by New Cat's Eye, posted 02-11-2010 10:20 AM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 95 by New Cat's Eye, posted 02-11-2010 1:34 PM onifre has not replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 94 of 167 (546533)
02-11-2010 1:26 PM
Reply to: Message 92 by New Cat's Eye
02-11-2010 10:20 AM


Re: "Human"
Other pro-lifers advocate just letting nature take its course.
When it comes to conceptuses yes. But not when it comes to letting genuine babies die naturally through lack of treatment.
Until those who use terms like murder, babies, children and human life with regard to medically aborted conceptuses treat the natural death of billions of biologically identical conceptuses with the same level of concern that the would treat the natural and unintended death of billions of genuine human babies and children I don’t see how they can claim any sort of logical consistency or moral superiority. Explain to me how they can?
So they would be against artificial abortion while not being for preventing natural abortions.
Yet they would be against both artificial and untreated natural death of babies. Thus demonstrating that they are not interested in saving the lives of "human beings" as they define the term. But are instead intent on imposing their misguided and logically incoherent morality on others.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 92 by New Cat's Eye, posted 02-11-2010 10:20 AM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 96 by New Cat's Eye, posted 02-11-2010 1:38 PM Straggler has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 95 of 167 (546534)
02-11-2010 1:34 PM
Reply to: Message 93 by onifre
02-11-2010 1:09 PM


Re: "Human"
Then how does that make them pro-life?
'cause they lock arms and block cemeteries....
But really, they're not pro-life because of this position.
Seem like they're just pro-controlling what people do.
Christians!? No... when have they ever done that?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 93 by onifre, posted 02-11-2010 1:09 PM onifre has not replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 96 of 167 (546535)
02-11-2010 1:38 PM
Reply to: Message 94 by Straggler
02-11-2010 1:26 PM


Re: "Human"
But not when it comes to letting genuine babies die naturally through lack of treatment.
Some do...
You've heard of those Christians that refuse medical treatment before.
Until those who use terms like murder, babies, children and human life with regard to medically aborted conceptuses treat the natural death of billions of biologically identical conceptuses with the same level of concern that the would treat the natural and unintended death of billions of genuine human babies and children I don’t see how they can claim any sort of logical consistency or moral superiority. Explain to me how they can?
I've already provided you with explanations:
quote:
Maybe they feel that an innocent pre-born person deserves a chance at life but people who have already had their chance don't need to be unnecessarily preserved.
quote:
Because the natural abortions are unintentional and natural but medical abortions are artificial and intentional.
Its the difference between letting someone die of natural causes and actively killing them.
quote:
Other pro-lifers advocate just letting nature take its course.
So they would be against artificial abortion while not being for preventing natural abortions.
If those don't suffice then I'm not gonna put any more effort into trying to provide you with more explanations.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 94 by Straggler, posted 02-11-2010 1:26 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 97 by Straggler, posted 02-11-2010 2:22 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 97 of 167 (546549)
02-11-2010 2:22 PM
Reply to: Message 96 by New Cat's Eye
02-11-2010 1:38 PM


Re: "Human"
Straggler writes:
But not when it comes to letting genuine babies die naturally through lack of treatment.
Some do...
You've heard of those Christians that refuse medical treatment before.
Well I think they are mad. But at least logically consistent. How many pro-lifers are willing to demonstrate the courage of their convictions in this manner? Not fucking many I would bet!!
Straggler writes:
Until those who use terms like murder, babies, children and human life with regard to medically aborted conceptuses treat the natural death of billions of biologically identical conceptuses with the same level of concern that the would treat the natural and unintended death of billions of genuine human babies and children I don’t see how they can claim any sort of logical consistency or moral superiority. Explain to me how they can?
I've already provided you with explanations:
Right let's go through these one by painful one shall we?
Maybe they feel that an innocent pre-born person deserves a chance at life but people who have already had their chance don't need to be unnecessarily preserved.
Then sick toddlers should be left to die from any natural cause they become afflicted with.
Because the natural abortions are unintentional and natural but medical abortions are artificial and intentional.
Its the difference between letting someone die of natural causes and actively killing them.
Then it is OK to leave sick toddlers to die as long as we are not intentionally killing them.
Other pro-lifers advocate just letting nature take its course.
So they would be against artificial abortion while not being for preventing natural abortions.
Then why not let nature take it's course with regard to sick toddlers? As long as we are not intentionally killing toddlers all is fine and dandy no?
If those don't suffice then I'm not gonna put any more effort into trying to provide you with more explanations.
You have done nothing but evade the point.
If conceptuses are "human babies" in the eyes of pro-lifers why don't they treat them as they would real human babies in terms of natural causes of death?
Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 96 by New Cat's Eye, posted 02-11-2010 1:38 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 98 by New Cat's Eye, posted 02-11-2010 2:33 PM Straggler has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 98 of 167 (546551)
02-11-2010 2:33 PM
Reply to: Message 97 by Straggler
02-11-2010 2:22 PM


Re: "Human"
Well I think they are mad. But at least logically consistent. How many pro-lifers are willing to demonstrate the courage of their convictions in this manner? Not fucking many I would bet!!
You're going to find all kinds of colors of people in the group of pro-lifers, as a continuum from letting sick kids die to actually having abortions themselves. There's going to be all kinds of levels of inconsistency and irrationality as well as consistency and rationality.
You're broad brush of all of them being irrational and inconsistent if they reject artificial abortion and don't divert all medical attention into saving all conceptuses is incorrect.
I don't think its that hard to understand or imagine possible explanations, but if you're hell bent on turning anything I can try to offer into them definitely being irrational and inconsistent, then I'm just gonna have to quit and do something else that I'd rather do than play this game with you.
If conceptuses are "human babies" in the eyes of pro-lifers why don't they treat them as they would real human babies in terms of natural causes of death?
Some do, some don't.
We have made advances/improvements in the viability of conceptuses, so its not like they're just being totally ignored and no body cares about them at all. I'd bet that even some of the contributors are pro-life too.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 97 by Straggler, posted 02-11-2010 2:22 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 99 by Straggler, posted 02-11-2010 2:40 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 99 of 167 (546554)
02-11-2010 2:40 PM
Reply to: Message 98 by New Cat's Eye
02-11-2010 2:33 PM


Hypocrisy
You're broad brush of all of them being irrational and inconsistent if they reject artificial abortion and don't divert all medical attention into saving all conceptuses is incorrect.
No. I am accusing them of hypocrisy when they accuse people of "killing babies" and use that to justify their actions whilst simultaeously not giving a shit about something that is biologically identical.
There's going to be all kinds of levels of inconsistency and irrationality as well as consistency and rationality.
Personal irrationality I can cope with. We all do that all of the time. It is when it is used to justify hypocrisy and the imposition of ones irrationalities on others that I get vexed.
If conceptuses are "human babies" in the eyes of pro-lifers why don't they treat them as they would real human babies in terms of natural causes of death?
Some do, some don't.
Well the ones that don't (the vast majority I would say) are hypocrites when they start accusing others of murdering and killing babies. No?
Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 98 by New Cat's Eye, posted 02-11-2010 2:33 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 100 by New Cat's Eye, posted 02-11-2010 2:56 PM Straggler has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 100 of 167 (546556)
02-11-2010 2:56 PM
Reply to: Message 99 by Straggler
02-11-2010 2:40 PM


Re: Hypocrisy
I am accusing them of hypocrisy when they accuse people of "killing babies" and use that to justify their actions whilst simultaeously not giving a shit about something that is biologically identical.
The difference is in the natural and unintentional result of a natural abortion not being the immoral action of killing a person.
Well the ones that don't (the vast majority I would say) are hypocrites when they start accusing others of murdering and killing babies. No?
Not necessarily, by the difference above.
Although yes, I'm sure a lot of them are hypocrites.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 99 by Straggler, posted 02-11-2010 2:40 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 101 by Straggler, posted 02-11-2010 3:07 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 101 of 167 (546563)
02-11-2010 3:07 PM
Reply to: Message 100 by New Cat's Eye
02-11-2010 2:56 PM


Re: Hypocrisy
I am accusing them of hypocrisy when they accuse people of "killing babies" and use that to justify their actions whilst simultaeously not giving a shit about something that is biologically identical.
The difference is in the natural and unintentional result of a natural abortion not being the immoral action of killing a person.
And the hypocrisy is in imbuing that conceptus with personhood in order to justify venting their morality on others whilst not doing so when they don't have that ulterior motive.
Although yes, I'm sure a lot of them are hypocrites.
Can I take it from this that you too condemn the actions of those that are hypocrites in the way described above?
Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 100 by New Cat's Eye, posted 02-11-2010 2:56 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 102 by New Cat's Eye, posted 02-11-2010 3:15 PM Straggler has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 102 of 167 (546566)
02-11-2010 3:15 PM
Reply to: Message 101 by Straggler
02-11-2010 3:07 PM


Re: Hypocrisy
And the hypocrisy is in imbuing that conceptus with personhood in order to justify venting their morality on others whilst not doing so when they don't have that ulterior motive.
IF that's the way they go about, yeah. Although, they can also be genuine in their belief in that personhood before they vent their morality on others.
Can I take it from this that you too condemn the actions of those that are hypocrites in the way described above?
I would, yes. But its not as fun to argue with morons

This message is a reply to:
 Message 101 by Straggler, posted 02-11-2010 3:07 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 103 by Straggler, posted 02-11-2010 3:24 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 103 of 167 (546569)
02-11-2010 3:24 PM
Reply to: Message 102 by New Cat's Eye
02-11-2010 3:15 PM


Re: Hypocrisy
Straggler writes:
And the hypocrisy is in imbuing that conceptus with personhood in order to justify venting their morality on others whilst not doing so when they don't have that ulterior motive.
IF that's the way they go about, yeah.
Well we agree on that. Do you think that is how the majority of pro-lifers go about advocating their pro-life morality?
Although, they can also be genuine in their belief in that personhood before they vent their morality on others.
In which case they should either treat all conceptuses as persons or keep their irrationalities to themselves.
I would, yes. But its not as fun to argue with morons
I don't know if you are calling me a moron or calling me not a moron. I guess I am too moronic to get the joke

This message is a reply to:
 Message 102 by New Cat's Eye, posted 02-11-2010 3:15 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 104 by New Cat's Eye, posted 02-11-2010 4:34 PM Straggler has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 104 of 167 (546577)
02-11-2010 4:34 PM
Reply to: Message 103 by Straggler
02-11-2010 3:24 PM


Re: Hypocrisy
Well we agree on that. Do you think that is how the majority of pro-lifers go about advocating their pro-life morality?
I don't know but I don't think that most of the sheeple pro-lifers realize that the law-making pro-lifers were 'justifying venting their morality on others'.
I think that they think that venting their morality is justified because they imbue the conceptus with personhood not that they are imbuing that conceptus with personhood in order to justify venting their morality.
In which case they should either treat all conceptuses as persons...
Which they do, they just don't advocate intervening with nature for a person that hasn't been born yet.
I would, yes. But its not as fun to argue with morons
I don't know if you are calling me a moron or calling me not a moron. I guess I am too moronic to get the joke
I was calling them morons. I'd rather argue with you because you're not a moron.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 103 by Straggler, posted 02-11-2010 3:24 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 106 by Apothecus, posted 02-11-2010 7:37 PM New Cat's Eye has replied
 Message 117 by Straggler, posted 02-16-2010 6:18 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
Apothecus
Member (Idle past 2411 days)
Posts: 275
From: CA USA
Joined: 01-05-2010


Message 105 of 167 (546583)
02-11-2010 6:06 PM
Reply to: Message 86 by New Cat's Eye
02-10-2010 3:33 PM


Re: "Human"
Hey Straggler.
Straggler writes:
Catholic Scientist writes:
If there's nothing you could do about it, sure.
And where you can do something about it? Are you saying that if we redirected all the medical resources currently aimed at cancer for example that we could not save many of those lost conceptuses that never even make it to the implanting in the uterus stage of development? We would need to save only a small percentage in order to outstrip those that we can save from cancer.
The technology's already there, fellas. It's call fertility treatments. I can guarantee you that with Clomid, injectable treatments like Follistim, as well as intrauterine insemination or hell, IVF if you want to go "all in", we'd whittle that 70% down by maybe three-quarters (a good faith estimate ). We'd have to make these treatments mandatory for all women of childbearing age, regardless of cost, because, you know, cost shouldn't be a consideration when considering the life of death of the unborn.
Yes, it's a ridiculous premise, but one I thought was interesting. Would Hyro then argue we'd need to go this far, if it's indeed a possibility? To what end? Overpopulation? As if it doesn't exist already! How far will the pro-life crowd wish to extend the argument? If it doesn't necessarily extend to the lengths I outlined above, then I believe one's standpoint need be reevaluated.
Have a good one.
Edited by Apothecus, : whoops! hit "reply" to wrong message. oh well, you gents get the point...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 86 by New Cat's Eye, posted 02-10-2010 3:33 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024