CTH Public Relations

• Torture by CO2HOG [May 02, 2012, 10:19:42 PM]
• China by CO2HOG [March 31, 2012, 02:24:13 PM]
• Global Warming Watch by TonyBlair [October 09, 2011, 06:41:37 PM]
• Solar Panel Doubts by TonyBlair [September 02, 2011, 08:25:23 AM]
• Barack Hussein Obama, Emp... by TonyBlair [August 10, 2011, 08:57:54 PM]
• National Debt Clocks and ... by Counter [August 08, 2011, 10:30:42 AM]
• Scanner or Pat Down? by Vocal Observer [June 28, 2011, 01:09:51 PM]
• Rise of the Police State by Vocal Observer [June 28, 2011, 01:01:03 PM]
• Who can we trust? by Vocal Observer [June 08, 2011, 01:07:59 PM]
• Anthony Wiener's wiener i... by CarolinaBuckeye [June 01, 2011, 11:29:22 PM]
• Democrat's Culture of Cor... by TonyBlair [May 18, 2011, 06:55:46 AM]
• Hey Obama..You want Taxes... by Vince the Fox [April 21, 2011, 03:12:25 AM]
• Obama Policy Watch by TonyBlair [April 20, 2011, 06:56:14 AM]
• George W. Obama by TonyBlair [April 19, 2011, 06:11:57 AM]
• The Religion of Peace Upd... by TonyBlair [April 12, 2011, 06:43:20 AM]

[Guest]

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever

Login with username, password and session length

Members

• Total Members: 329
• Latest: boborians

Stats

• Total Posts: 40602
• Total Topics: 5158
• Online Today: 17
• Online Ever: 252
• (April 10, 2011, 07:49:21 AM)

Users Online

Users: 0
Guests: 16
Total: 16

EducateWorthington.org

The 912 Project - Glenn Beck

912 Group of Central Ohio

Please let me know if you'd like your link added

This is an excellent video of the atrocities of abortion. The 24 wkr shown reminds me of the 24 weekers we take care of At Childrens Hospital

 <a href="http://godtube.com/flvplayer.swf?viewkey=8cc03bd27f67e38a0ed6" target="_blank">http://godtube.com/flvplayer.swf?viewkey=8cc03bd27f67e38a0ed6</a>

In Freedom

The American Woman RN BSN
Neonatal ICU RN

The thing that amazes me most is that the father has absolutely no say in the matter, as if they aren't even part of the equation. Could you imagine how a woman would react if a husband had the power to order her to have an aborting if she didn't want to? It would be devastating, and yet men must endure it on an ongoing basis.

My ex-wife worked for Childrens Home Services as a RN and you wouldn't believe the number of stories she related the pressure the parents of these little people were under to have either aborted them when certain health issues had been identified early on in the pregnancy or after they were born to let them starve to death instead of rendering proper medical treatment.

 

The irony of it all....

And yet... we offer grieving parents of "wanted" children this beautiful option for memorializing their  lost baby.

http://www.nowilaymedowntosleep.org/

In Freedom  

I’ve observed the Right to Life movement since 1976.
This is the first honest set of pictures I’ve seen from RTL.
The use of the quarter to give a perspective on size is refreshing.

This video is on a religious website --making  more vivid the point that opponents of abortion are motivated by their religious beliefs.

Because religious doctrines are based on personal and subjective beliefs not subject to objective standards of evaluation most Americans do not believe that religious beliefs should be enforced by government legislation.

 

This video is on a religious website --making more vivid the point that opponents of abortion are motivated by their religious beliefs.

No, I think most people are opposed to abortion on the principle that the wanton taking of another's life is murder, and that we as a collective group of people (called a nation) have decided that that's not so cool. Sounds a lot like "Thou shalt not kill" stuff to me, and I doubt our forefathers gleaned that idea from paintings on the walls of a cave. But what do I know? Maybe I'm not objective enough to realize that murder isn't always a bad thing, especially when it involves sucking the brains out of someone without a voice who's too small (and unarmed ) to fight back.

Your dismissal of the views represented in a video as religiously motivated just because it was posted on a religious website is ludicrous. That's like me saying that because I found a statement of yours on a Michael Moore website that you are motivated by Michael Moore.

Robertdwrightman

No, I think most people are opposed to abortion on the principle that the wanton taking of another's life is murder, and that we as a collective group of people (called a nation) have decided that that's not so cool.

Maybe I'm not objective enough to realize that murder isn't always a bad thing

Murder is always morally wrong. It’s part of the definition of ‘murder’. Murder is unjustifiable killing of another human person. There presumably are instances in which killing another human person is morally justifiable. Those cases are not cases of murder.

The question is – is abortion morally justifiable or not. Simply calling it murder is not a sufficient reason to think it is. Just as calling the killing of an innocent Iraqi civilian a case of murder is not sufficient reason to think it is murder.

Everyone knows the basic rights based argument against abortion:

Premise 1: The human embryo has a right to life.
Premise 2: It is morally wrong to kill or abort embryos if they have a right to life. (this is the “thou shalt not kill” part).
Therefore abortion is morally wrong.

The problem here is defending premise 1 not with premise 2.  As far as I can tell, eight different arguments have been proposed attempting to defend premise 1:

(1)    the parsimony argument,
(2)    the species essence argument,
(3)    the kindred species argument,
(4)    the sanctity of human life argument,
(5)    the slippery slope argument,
(6)    the potentiality argument,
(7)    the essential property argument,
(    the future-like-ours argument.

I don’t think that any of these argument work. But more importantly, almost no one can in the real world--no ordinary people can actually state any of these arguments. The reason, and this is merely based on my own experience, is that ordinary people (as opposed to religious or secular ethicists) actually uses them.

Typically, ordinary people using the rights based argument are motivated by religion to defend premise 1 and not by any other beliefs or argument.


 

Your dismissal of the views represented in a video as religiously motivated just because it was posted on a religious website is ludicrous. That's like me saying that because I found a statement of yours on a Michael Moore website that you are motivated by Michael Moore.

You might be right about this. Formally your argument is flawless. But you’re missing a couple of crucial points.

First, you’re right that where an argument or statement is posted (passive voice) determines neither motivation nor validity. But, if I were to post (active voice) a my message praising Michael Moore on his site – it would suggest my motivation. I don't know who posted the video. I'll give you this point.

Secondly, (and more importantly) it is not so much where the video was posted (as I misleadingly wrote in my message) it is the little religious logo at the bottom corner of the video that suggests a religious connection with the anti-abortion message. Since religion is a powerful motivator it is not unreasonable to conclude that the anti-abortion message was religiously motivated.

Look guy, most thinking people don't need to turn to a Philosophy 101 handbook to to come up with an argument that helps them determine right from wrong. Your dilemma seems to be in that you do.

Nor do they need a Bible, which is what you alledge when you assume that all abortion opponents are religiously motivated. I have to conclude that you are one of those poor paranoid souls who sees a Christian boogeyman lurking in every voting booth. Cheer up, lad!

Murder is always morally wrong.

I wonder how you arrived at that moral absolute. Did you read that in a book somewhere? Or watch it on a 70s television program?

Your argument for or against abortion seems to hinge on that one word that gets crammed into your definition of murder: "justifiable". It confuses you since, by your morals, abortion is not murder since you can justify it.

Is abortion morally justifiable? A person or group can just about morally justify anything they do depending on their morals or shortcomings thereof.

But that's not how we do business in a lawful society. Ideally, we get our laws from the consensus of a majority, not from the musings of a collection of philosophers nor from judicial fiat. Whether this consensus comes from a majority of the society that gets it's morals from Judeo-Christian thought, Oprah, or a box of Pop Tarts does not matter. Now this doesn't necessarily mean that "religious beliefs are being enforced through government legislation" any more than it means that Oprah's beliefs are being enforced through government legislation. And this, my friend, is the source of your hang-up, since you choose to see Christian boogeymen every time you run up against opposition to your own ideology.

Society determines what is justifiable and what is not. Can you live with that?

Look guy, most thinking people don't need to turn to a Philosophy 101 handbook to to come up with an argument that helps them determine right from wrong. Your dilemma seems to be in that you do.

If you don’t have any respect for moral reasoning then by all means use whatever other method you care to use to determine right from wrong. Take the side of those who can shout the loudest or insult the other side the best using the most colorful language.

Most people can’t reason very well. I suggest you just avoid it completely.


Never the less, The argument I offered against abortion is a valid argument. I recommend you take it seriously.

I know full well the Bible won’t help in the abortion debate – the only reference to abortion in the Bible is in the 5th chapter of Numbers where abortion is treated as a tort.  Hardly a helpful approach to anyone thinking it’s a criminal matter.

Critical thinking seems to be beyond your interest.

Murder is always morally wrong.


I wonder how you arrived at that moral absolute. Did you read that in a book somewhere? Or watch it on a 70s television program?

I’m sufficiently familiar with the English language that I understand the meaning of words.

If Jones is a bachelor then Jones is  unmarried. It’s an absolute.  It doesn’t tell you if Jones is a bachelor or not. Like all absolutes, it’s empirically (or factually) empty.

Knowing that murder is wrong will never help you in deciding whether a particular case of killing is murder or not. Its like saying, if this is a morally unjustifiable case of killing then this killing is morally unjustifiable.

This is philosophy 101. You might try reading some of it.

I have to conclude that you are one of those poor paranoid souls who sees a Christian boogeyman lurking in every voting booth.

I know that about 75% of American adults are (self-identified) as Christians and there is no reason to think that only Christians in this country vote, so I don’t believe that every person in a voting voting booth or anywhere near one is a Christian.

Do you want my entire biography and psychological profile? I suggest you focus your attack on the issue, the ideas, and the argument rather than on the person offering them.

Logic 101: ad hominem argument.  Look it up.



 

Don't take your ball home yet! I will have you know that I am thinking quite critically. Watch how I tear your argument apart before your very eyes using my critical thinking:

You confuse "moral" reasoning with "logical" reasoning, or perhaps it is your intent to blur the distinction. But thats okay, most people don't know the difference and don't care. Does that mean that they shouldn't have an opinion? Should they not have a vote? And look how you try to void my reasoning because I have the ability to think independently of what my college professors thought they could indoctrinate me in. Philosophy 101 was interesting, to be sure. But when I got out in the real world I realized that most of it can only exist in a vacuum or a college lecture hall. So sue me. Would you like to void my vote next!

If I were to take the side of those who shout the loudest or use the most colorful language, I would no doubt be siding with Rosie O'Donnell, GLAD, Code Pink, NARAL, NOW, and yourself.

I like you, but not that much to hang with the rest of the gang!

If your culture is ruled by fundamentalist jihadists then you might think it wise to resist. On the other hand, if you’re a fundamentalist jihadist you would like it just fine.

Now this isn't just a silly example of relative extremism, is it?

We don't live in a culture ruled by fundamental extremists. But you jump to that extreme because, once again, you tend to see it that way when your ideology crashes headlong into the consensus of the majority which may be based on morals that agree with Judeo-Chrisitan teachings.

Your argument for or against abortion seems to hinge on that one word that gets crammed into your definition of murder: "justifiable". It confuses you since, by your morals, abortion is not murder since you can justify it.

This is the argument I offered.

Premise 1: The human embryo has a right to life.
Premise 2: It is morally wrong to kill or abort embryos if they have a right to life. (this is the “thou shalt not kill” part).
Therefore abortion is morally wrong.


Number 1: It is not my argument. This is an argument that has appeared in the literature on abortion hundreds of times over the last 30 years. I’m just repeating it.

Number 2: The argument does not hinge on the definition of murder and much less my definition of murder. I’ll repeat. It isn’t my argument. It’s a perfectly good argument however. It’s a valid argument after all.

Number 3: I don’t think I’m confused by it. I believe that abortion is morally permissible. Murder isn’t morally permissible, so obviously I don’t think that abortion is murder. This is elementary.

Do you disagree with this? Does this suggest confusion?

Can I justify abortion? There is one argument – probably the most written about argument in the abortion literature --that I think can justify abortion.  However, the argument is too complicated to get into here.

I focus more on the argument for premise 1 of the above argument. I don’t think any of the arguments for that premise are any good.

As I mentioned in the above post – examination of arguments and assessments of their worth falls under the general category of reasoning. But if you can decide moral issues without using reason then more power to you. Lots of people seem to get along without it quite well.

Is abortion morally justifiable? A person or group can just about morally justify anything they do depending on their morals or shortcomings thereof.

This is just a silly sort of extreme relativism. Relative to x body of beliefs we can justify belief y. This is elementary.

Society determines what is justifiable and what is not. Can you live with that?

In some cases we have too but in other cases we might choose not to live with it.  If your culture is ruled by fundamentalist jihadists then you might think it wise to resist. On the other hand, if you’re a fundamentalist jihadist you would like it just fine.

Again this is pretty elementary.



 

What's elementary to this argument is the US Supreme Court decided an issue for the nation that the taxpayers of this great nation had no hand in it's final decision.

Wouldn't this fall under something like "state's rights"?

You can hash this however you'd like to, why when the police officer in Canton that killed his girlfriend and her unborn child was charged w/2 counts of murder? If that fetus is considered "a thing" how can a thing be considered worth charging someone w/murder for?

That's what I like about this subject typically the pro-choice crowd talks out of both sides of their mouths, that proof would be within your last post.

What this all amounts to is on demand abortion as the ultimate form of birth control for those who are nothing more than worried about their pleasure instead of taking responsibility for their actions. It's infanticide pure plain & simple.

Another way to look at this is the over 43 Million abort children would've changed the face of our great nation. Think about how this would've changed the social security issue for starters.  

Don't take your ball home yet! I will have you know that I am thinking quite critically. Watch how I tear your argument apart before your very eyes using my critical thinking:

Very good – you probably noticed I removed a reply. I needed to correct a section – erased it – and rewrote it.

Tear apart my argument to your heart’s content. But please, whenever you do this copy the argument you’re attacking so I know what you’re referring to.

You confuse "moral" reasoning with "logical" reasoning, or perhaps it is your intent to blur the distinction.

Good point—these are separate concepts. Logic is only a part of reasoning just as moral reasoning is only part of reasoning. Most good reasoning has little to do with logic.
But that doesn’t mean that it doesn’t help to look very carefully at someone’s reasoning and list the premises and the conclusions in order to evaluate whether the reasoning is sound.

I’m not writing a textbook here so don’t expect me to give the complete story on logic, reasoning or morality.

And look how you try to void my reasoning because I have the ability to think independently of what my college professors thought they could indoctrinate me in.

I’m not being critical of you independent thinking – I’m critical of your sloppy thinking.

Philosophy 101 was interesting, to be sure. But when I got out in the real world I realized that most of it can only exist in a vacuum or a college lecture hall.

But that’s standard. Most people never use most of what they learned in English literature, in algebra, trig, and calculus, geography, and history. You learn it for the test and then forget it.

If I were to take the side of those who shout the loudest or use the most colorful language, I would no doubt be siding with Rosie O'Donnell, GLAD, Code Pink, NARAL, NOW, and yourself.

So, give me an example of something I have said that you consider shouting. Or are you so intolerant of dissent that you consider everyone who disagrees with you insane and all you hear is an incoherent Rosie O’Donnell style rant.

We don't live in a culture ruled by fundamental extremists. But you jump to that extreme because, once again, you tend to see it that way when your ideology crashes headlong into the consensus of the majority which may be based on morals that agree with Judeo-Chrisitan teachings.

I’ll give you credit for not taking everything too literally. You have some imagination. But its not clear you know when to use it. Sometimes the literal interpretation is intended. I agree that our culture is not ruled by fundamentalist extremists. The word ‘IF’ is important.

I wrote: “If your culture is ruled by fundamentalist jihadists then you might think it wise to resist. On the other hand, if you’re a fundamentalist jihadist you would like it just fine.”

Perhaps I should have used a different example.

Notice how none of this has anything to do with abortion?