....you have to twist all sorts of logic to try to make it work. See the conversation below.
The names have been changed in this converstaion. The flyer below was shared by Bob. I chimed in and his friends join in the conversation. And note, I never did get a good answer to my question.
Me Equating eating pork to killing a child. That’s great logic right there.
Like · Reply · 4 hrs
Sarah You compared “eating pork to killing a child.” The post states different religions beliefs as a point of topic defining personal choice. It was your personal choice to go off topic with your gross comparison of pork and children as if that were the original discussion which it was NOT. I hope that cleared up how to read for you.
Like · Reply · 1 · 45 mins
Me It’s a false equivalent, which is what I was pointing out. A table has four legs and so does a dog. But sawing the legs off of those two things has a very different meaning for each.
Like · Reply · 40 mins
Sarah Yes, if you took a leg off for no reason sure but sometimes tables get repurposed because they are no longer functional and sometimes legs get necrotic and need to be removed to save the body and soul... VERY different! Again NO ONE EVER COMPARED THESE TWO THINGS BUT YOU!
So you keep presenting your thought to all of use over and over again that they are the same...
Like · Reply · 1 · 33 mins
Me No I’m pointing out that two things that may have some attributes in common doesn’t mean that they make a good analogy or comparison. See above...the comparison between eating pork and killing a human life. It doesn’t work as a basis for saying that arguments made by a religious person are universally equivalent and should be outright rejected in a discussion of law.
Like · Reply · 21 mins
Bob You are the one insisting it is a human life at a point where in is not independently viable. That is the point.
Like · Reply · 1 · 19 mins
Me I’m still just trying to figure out what you guys think is a good basis for discussing what laws we ought to have.
Like · Reply · 18 mins
Sarah Empathy, compassion and a love of science!!! Discussion ended!!! After I’ve explained something to the kids 3 times I decide it’s time to walk away and let them figure it out...
Like · Reply · 16 mins
Me Empathy and compassion are religious values. Just saying...
Like · Reply · 10 mins
Me This write has clearly equated mistakenly moral arguments for religious ones. The law is a reflection of the morals of the people and the founding fathers clearly wanted a moral people and moral laws. Just because an argument happens to be made by religious people doesn’t make it a religious argument. In the case of abortion it is a moral argument based on science and natural law.
Like · Reply · 4 hrs · Edited
Bob Mike I can’t understand it for you.
Like · Reply · 2 hrs
Me Help a dummy out, would you?
Like · Reply · 2 hrs
Bob I understand your claim that this is a moral issue not religious.
That the unborn child is a person and morally it is wrong to have an abortion is your personal opinion.
You are applying your beliefs to what another sentient individual may or may not do to their body, inside of which is, you claim is another individual who has superiority over the first?
So stop being suprised that I believe this is a religious issue. It is not based in science, or medecine.
Like · Reply · 1 · 2 hrs
Me I make no claims of superiority of one over another. I make the claim that as a living human being, albeit in early stages of development, that as the scientific study of embryology recognizes, that a distinct human life begins at the moment of fertilization, arguments regarding viability notwithstanding. To deny that is to make unfounded argument based on one’s own moral judgment of superiority of one (adult) over another (child). No religion comes into play in this argument. As you stated, you believe this is a religious issue. I don’t. So don’t ascribe that to me. But to go back to my original point, yes, moral arguments very much have a place in law.
Like · Reply · 2 hrs
Me I don’t expect to change your mind on abortion, but the writer of this flyer you shared clearly doesn’t understand the relationship between law and morality and is trying to claim that discussions of morality (which, by the way are distinct from discussions of religion, even though there may happen to be overlap) have no place in discussing the law. All of our laws are intended to impose a standard that our society recognizes as moral.
Like · Reply · 1 hr
Frank Hey Mike, are you by any chance someone who enjoys a steak or hamburger? Just wondering.
Like · Reply · 2 · 1 hr
Sarah Watch a video on where your meet comes from and see what gruesome abortions of life really look like.
Like · Reply · 1 · 1 hr
Frank I don’t have an issue with it if he does eat meat, but I do have an issue if he is going to attempt to pull a pro-life stance, like he currently is, but is completely ok with the murder of animals for his diet. Oh wait, he’s religious, so animals don’t have souls so it’s ok to destroy the environment around him. Just as long as he benefits from the destruction.
Like · Reply · 2 · 1 hr
Frank I hope he doesn’t own a pet of any kind because we all know that he will immediately not give a shit about it due to his religious standing.
Like · Reply · 1 · 1 hr
Me Are you making a moral argument?
Like · Reply · 1 hr
Frank I also wonder if he wears two different types of materials at once. Because that’s a sin as well.
Like · Reply · 1 · 1 hr
Me Can someone point to me where I made a religious argument?
Like · Reply · 1 hr
Frank The concept of religion is to create a set of “moral guidelines”. They are one in the same.
Like · Reply · 2 · 1 hr
Frank You were attempting to create a separation of the two, but without morality, religion can not exist.
Like · Reply · 2 · 1 hr · Edited
Me I thought the stereotype was that religious people were the ones who claimed that you could only be moral if you were religious. And you’re the ones claiming that they are inseparable. And yet, no one has attempted to refute my main point, that all laws are a reflection of a society’s understanding of morality, however imperfect it may be.
Like · Reply · 1 hr
Bob Where is the morality in de-funding Planned Parenthood?
Sex Ed?
Like · Reply · 1 hr
Frank Actually, I’m claiming that you can’t have religion without morality. You can have morality without religion though. Here’s the difference though. If you actually cared about the possible “life” that is ended in an abortion, you would look at the possible outcomes for that “life” if it weren’t aborted. Are you forcing a life to go through a life of neglect and torture from it’s parents? Are you putting that life through a living hell if it does continue to exist? These are questions that are never even though about because the first thing that religious people jump to is, “There’s a life in your body and you are killing it!” Actually, no. The life can’t sustain itself without the body in which it is currently host of, there for the “life” you are trying to defend is no more than a parasite or tumor. Now, you can either continue to have that grow in you and eventually have a living organism, aka a child, or you can decide that you don’t want to have it growing due to a multitude of reasons, which you are choosing to ignore.
Like · Reply · 1 · 1 hr
Frank The only reason why you have your stance is due to your religious beliefs by the way. Why do I know? Because of your profile. Which, by the way, makes you look like you are attempting to parade around as if you were Jesus, which we know you aren’t. That’s a sin.
Like · Reply · 1 · 1 hr
Me Wow Frank, I guess you don’t need me to argue my side, since you’ve got it all figured out. You excel at deductive and inductive reasoning, merely from a picture! And you’ve found me out for my own blasphemy. Mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa.
Like · Reply · 1 hr
Frank No, I’m not claiming that at all. I’m actually only using your own form of judging people without actually knowing their situation. You didn’t think of that because you’d rather just be angry.
Like · Reply · 2 · 1 hr
Me Are you reading a different conversation? This is getting funny.
Like · Reply · 1 hr
Bob There is nothing funny about this.
Unlike · Reply · 1 · 1 hr
Frank Bob knows how I am and where I am coming from. Otherwise, he would have stopped me on my first comment.
Like · Reply · 1 · 1 hr
Sarah When every bible thumper stands outside a Planned Parenthood or advocates for keeping sex education out of schools they are causing abortions to happen. For fuck sake the morning after pill has existed for how long now and it seems to be a mythical unicorn that is only found in fairy tales because new generations are being dumbed down by people who want to shut down the exchange of information necessary to combat these problems through the very organizations being chastised for helping without judgment... it’s asinine.
Like · Reply · 1 · 59 mins
Me I’ve merely pointed out logical flaws in the original flyer and have been called angry, judgmental, and hypocritical. If you read what I’ve written, you’ll see that’s not actually the case. But I guess that’s what you go with when you can’t answer my original point.
Like · Reply · 57 mins
Frank You only have that stance because you are angry, judgmental, and hypocritical.
Like · Reply · 56 mins
Frank And before you get started with a dumb response. The reason for your stance is to separate your religion so you aren’t “in the wrong” in your own mind.
Like · Reply · 52 mins
Me Uh, yeah, OK. and Bob, this started because your flyer claims that morality is not the basis for discussing what laws should and should not be. So why do you ask me about my moral stance on Planned Parenthood? You’ve taken that off the table.
Like · Reply · 51 mins
Frank The flyer doesn’t state that. The flyer states that we shouldn’t make laws due to your religious beliefs.
Like · Reply · 50 mins
Me You clearly didn’t read the flyer, then.
Like · Reply · 50 mins
Frank I did actually.
Like · Reply · 50 mins
Frank You read it as well, but you jumped to your conclusion to defend your religious belief and no more than that.
Like · Reply · 49 mins
Sarah I believe the whole point is the “reflection of understanding” as you put it is wrong and needs to change. You can’t pass judgment on others beliefs or choices that are not your own because their life is not yours to choose and instead of passing judgment on anyone everyone should remember the moral guidelines “do unto others as you would have them do unto you.” We would not pass judgment if you didn’t want to have an abortion. Don’t be the mortality police but seek the answers to things you don’t understand and these false images reflected by society will diminish.
I believe everyone has responded to your original post take your blinders off and maybe you’ll finally see the light.
Like · Reply · 43 mins
Me No I’m trying to make the case that morality is the study of what is right or wrong action and that law is the codification of morality. We can have discussions on what is right or wrong. We may have disagreements on that. We may have these discussions without mentioning religion whatsoever. I fail to see how we can discuss what laws ought to be or not to be without discussing what is right or wrong, whether we agree on what those conclusions are or not.
Like · Reply · 42 mins · Edited
Frank And what I’m saying is that the only reason for your belief of “right and wrong” is because of your religious stance.
Like · Reply · 39 mins
Me And you would be wrong in saying that.
Like · Reply · 39 mins
Frank Ok. What’s your stance on abortion and why?
Like · Reply · 38 mins
Frank Give you a chance here so carefully think before you post.
Like · Reply · 37 mins
Me See above. Science clearly shows that life begins at conception and I can’t claim superiority of one human being over the other.
Like · Reply · 36 mins
Frank So if I take the “life” out of the womb before it is correctly birthed, without sustaining it in an incubator of any sort. Just leaving it how it is. Will it live? At all?
Like · Reply · 35 mins
Me If I said it is wrong to intentionally take an innocent human life, would you reject that as a religious belief? And if not, would you at least agree with me? And to my original point, what is the basis of law if not what ought to be and not to be?
Like · Reply · 34 mins
Frank Also, please link evidence of “life starting at conception” because in my research, that has never been stated by a scientist.
Like · Reply · 33 mins
Me It was stated categorically by Alan guttmacher former president of planned parenthood
Like · Reply · 30 mins
Frank I said link. Not state.
Like · Reply · 30 mins
Me And he wasn’t alone...
http://www.epm.org/.../when-does-life-begin-quotes-many.../
When Does Life Begin?: Quotes from Many Sources - Resources - Eternal Perspective Ministries
When does human life begin? Many people say that this is a philosophical or religious question. Christians maintain that life begins at conception. Does this mean that the question of when life begins is purely religious? In reality, scientists agree on when human life begins.
EPM.ORG
Like · Reply · Remove Preview · 28 mins
Frank Is it wrong to kill someone. Yes, if I shot someone or stabbed in any manor to cause a fatal injury, you are correct. However, this is not the case. If the host of the “life” you are defending dies, does the “life” die as well? Yes. Just like with any tumor or parasite. That “life” can not live without it’s host. Now, obviously baring life to give birth is different depending on what the host wants for the future of that “life”.
Like · Reply · 25 mins
Me http://dailycaller.com/.../as-planned-parenthood-turns.../
As Planned Parenthood Turns 100, This Is Their Biggest Lie
DAILYCALLER.COM
Like · Reply · Remove Preview · 25 mins
Frank Also, just because the conception creates a human entity does not mean it creates life.
Like · Reply · 24 mins
Frank And even better, both of your sources are far right/religious sources so of course that lines up with what you want to hear.
Like · Reply · 22 mins
Frank Now back to my question: If I take the “life” out of the womb before it is correctly birthed, without sustaining it in an incubator of any sort. Just leaving it how it is. Will it live? At all?
For scientific research.
Like · Reply · 21 mins · Edited
Me Why would you do that? Just like if I took a child and locked out in the closet with no food or water. For scientific research?
Like · Reply · 19 mins
Frank It would live longer than a few seconds.
Like · Reply · 18 mins
Me So intentionally killing someone by a slow death is wrong but a quick one isn’t? That certainly would change our gun laws...
Like · Reply · 16 mins
Frank Nice try. That’s not what I’m saying.
Like · Reply · 16 mins
Frank You are putting a confirmed life, because it is something that has been birthed, there for living without a host, in danger. I’m just removing a tumor.
Like · Reply · 15 mins
Me Wow. Tumor. So according to the words a human life is a tumor but not a human being. Look, I don’t expect to change your mind about abortion because you don’t have a consistent view of the value of human life. I get it. And I reject it.
Like · Reply · 11 mins
Frank And there’s the problem. For us to create a law on something, we need to understand both sides of the situation to create a law that is fit in all eyes. Not just yours.
Like · Reply · 9 mins
Me I agree with that statement
Like · Reply · 8 mins
Frank So you can’t reject my opinion because you don’t agree with it.
Like · Reply · 8 mins
Me Well somewhat. We will never have full agreement from all sides on every issue
Like · Reply · 8 mins
Frank You find a middle ground. One that everyone might not “agree” fully on but can understand why it is that way.
Like · Reply · 6 mins
Me Frank I just put that citing those embryology textbooks because you said in your research no scienctist has ever said that life begins at conception. If you choose to reject it because a pro-life person cited it, that’s your decision.
Like · Reply · 4 mins
Me Frank You are absolutely right, which is why I’ve consistently made my arguments without recourse to my religious faith.
Like · Reply · 2 mins
Frank No, the research you linked stated that “conception creates a new human entity”. Meaning you can be human without having “life”.
Like · Reply · 2 mins
Frank You don’t have to link me btw.. I am paying attention to my notifications.
Like · Reply · 1 min
Me just trying to reply to certain comments to keep the comment tree readable, but it put my comment at the end.
Like · Reply · Just now
Me and if you look at the first link, all the citations of human being, entity, and life, use those terms interchangeably.
Like · Reply · 34 mins
Frank Life, meaning a human life, starts at birth. Life, meaning an organism is alive, starts at conception. It’s a misconception that people fall into. You don’t celebrate your conception day. You celebrate your birthday, because that’s when your life started.
Like · Reply · 23 mins · Edited
Me Your statement that human life begins at birth is not a scientific claim by any definition, and as a philosophical claim, is not widely held.
Like · Reply · 21 mins
Frank A lot of our laws are actually there because of philosophical claims though. So are you stating that they shouldn’t be laws because those claims aren’t scientific?
Like · Reply · 20 mins
Frank Hell, a lot of laws are there for religious claims. Most have been removed, but there are still some.
Like · Reply · 19 mins
Me No, I’m just pointing out that it is not scientific, but as a philosophical statement, is up to either a philosophical discussion about morality, or a popularity poll.
Like · Reply · 10 mins
Frank Therefor, just because you have scientific opinions stating that life starts at conception does not mean that abortion should be illegal because a good portion of our laws are there, not because of scientific reasoning, but philosophical reasoning.
Like · Reply · 5 mins
Me Check mate.
Like · Reply · 3 mins
Frank Not really.
Like · Reply · 2 mins
Frank If you really think this was a “battle” for some sort of “win”, you are sorely mistaken. We have two extremely opposing views. The law should take a middle ground based on how the law will effect individuals. Not a mass group.
Like · Reply · 1 min
Me You have just said that we should have abortion not because of scientific reasons, but because of philosophical (moral) reasoning, which is what you rejected to begin with.
Like · Reply · 1 min
Me Two extremely differing points of view that have life or death consequences for all involved. And you began by rejecting my arguments not because of what I was actually saying, but because of who I am. And then you came around to arguing your point on the same basis you sought to deny me. On your own opinion, not on facts.
Like · Reply · Just now
Frank Actually, no, I rejected what you said about the flyer above. I didn’t state anything that says abortion should be legal based on scientific reasons. That’s your side.
Like · Reply · Just now
Frank I simply state abortion should be legal.
Me You think we should be able to have abortion. I think we shouldn’t. Your solution is to compromise and have abortion.
Like · Reply · 7 mins
Frank My solution is my wife having an abortion doesn’t effect your shitty life, so make it legal.
Like · Reply · 6 mins
Frank As I stated before, the law should take a middle ground based on how the law will effect individuals. Not groups.
Like · Reply · 5 mins
Me I agree, and am wishing that the law would consider how it affects individual human lives being killed in abortion.
Like · Reply · 2 mins
Me And am sorry for your loss.
Frank And I’m hoping that the law will take in to account that the person(s) may not be able to financially support a child or even emotionally support a child. To have a child should be the decision of the person(s), not ignorant religious groups and individuals.
Frank And don’t be. My wife never had an abortion. I was strictly using it to show you that my life and other’s lives have no effect on you or your family. It is their decision and has no strings to you.
Like · Reply · 2 mins
Me The same could have been said to abolitionists. Actually, it was. The only difference is that people who support abortion claim that babies are not people that deserve the protection of the law. Wait, that’s not different. That’s exactly the same.
Frank If it is in the womb, it is not a baby. It is merely an organism living off a host, just like a tumor. Remove the organism and it can’t continue the “live”.
Life starts when you are birthed. A developing organism can not live longer than a few seconds if it is removed from it’s host.
Abolitionists wanted to enslave already conceived lives of other people. Pro-choice people want to make sure that people who are pregnant actually want to have a child before bring it into the world. If a person is pregnant and doesn’t want to have a child, that child is going to go through emotional and mental issues strictly because the parent did not want it. Even if we bring adoption into this, that kid may go to a foster family that only wants them because they bring in a pay check.
Like · Reply · 34 mins
Frank And then, you’ll probably be angry at the child because they are living off of government means, which you don’t want to pay for because TAXES.
Like · Reply · 33 mins
Frank Grouping you in with the right-wing “pro-life” crowd with that one but I’m pretty sure I know that’s what you are.
Like · Reply · 32 mins
Me So when it comes down to it, your approval for abortion is not based on science, reason, or morality, but is allowed just on your own opinion that personhood is magically conferred on a human life as it travels eight inches down the birth canal. That’s a convenient definition.
Like · Reply · 19 mins
Frank Now you are jumping to conclusions as if you have me read.
Like · Reply · 18 mins
Me No, I’m just summarizing based on what you have said...
Like · Reply · 17 mins
Frank You’re really bad at it.
Like · Reply · 17 mins
Me You first rejected my arguments based solely on my religious beliefs.
Like · Reply · 17 mins
Me Then when I pointed out that my arguments were not based on religion, but reason and science, you dismissed it as mere opinion.
Like · Reply · 17 mins
Me Then you said we had to base the discussion on understanding between people and that we ought to compromise by going with your opinion to protect individuals.
Like · Reply · 16 mins
Frank Separation of Church and State. And I know that only reason you have those beliefs is because you are a religious person. Sorry. And the only way you can back up your claim is by using religious sources so you don’t feel wrong.
Like · Reply · 16 mins
Me When I pointed out the individuals being killed by abortion you denied their personhood merely because of their being in the womb.
Like · Reply · 15 mins
Frank An organism in the womb is not an individual.
Like · Reply · 15 mins
Me With no rational basis for recognizing the personhood outside of the womb (small child) vs the personhood inside the womb.
Like · Reply · 15 mins
Frank Actually I have very rational basis. Life starts at birth.
Like · Reply · 14 mins
Frank We don’t celebrate conception day, we celebrate birthday.
Like · Reply · 13 mins
Me You have no rational basis for claiming that ... unless you also deny the personhood of many people outside the womb.
Like · Reply · 13 mins
Frank Because that is when a person is brought into the world. At birth.
Like · Reply · 13 mins
Me Birthday parties? that’s it?
Like · Reply · 13 mins
Frank Birth certificate. Not conception certificate.
Like · Reply · 13 mins
Me So according to your own words, birth changes living organisms from a tumor into a human being?
Like · Reply · 12 mins
Frank That’s where I was going with that one if you couldn’t connect the dots.
Like · Reply · 12 mins
Me Paperwork doesn’t confer personhood.
Like · Reply · 11 mins
Me Neither does location.
Like · Reply · 11 mins
Frank Actually it does. You aren’t considered a citizen of the United States or any other country unless you have a birth certificate. That’s why they were created. To cement that a person has started their life, which is at birth.
Like · Reply · 10 mins
Frank That can change a little after the Birth Certificate is created, but that’s the main point of it.
Like · Reply · 9 mins
Me So people without birth certificates are not persons? It’s amazing the logical hoops you have to jump through to support your opinion.
Like · Reply · 8 mins
Bob Look at the tradition of recording births and deaths at parish churches. Today that tradition and understanding confers person hood at birth.
Like · Reply · 7 mins · Edited
Me If what you say is right, then there was no problem with slavery in the South. Slaves had no birth certificates and their owners had bills of sale.
Like · Reply · 7 mins
Frank And you are right. Location doesn’t confer life. That’s why I think we should take in refugees.
Like · Reply · 1 · 7 mins
Frank Different subject.
Like · Reply · 1 · 7 mins
Frank Stay on point.
Like · Reply · 1 · 7 mins
Frank We are talking about abortion. Not slavery. Slavery is a different beast.
Like · Reply · 1 · 6 mins
Bob Now you bring slaves into this. Of course they were people. They were born.
Like · Reply · 6 mins
Me But they had no birth certificates.
Like · Reply · 6 mins
Frank Bob, he is grasping for straws to attempt to discredit my stance.
Like · Reply · 1 · 6 mins
Frank He is only bring slavery into this because he believes he is “losing” when there is no losing here.
Like · Reply · 1 · 5 mins
Bob They were born. They existed. Lack of a paper trail is immaterial.
Like · Reply · 5 mins
Me There is losing for the babies that are killed. We’re getting nowhere here.
Like · Reply · 5 mins
Frank An organism in the womb is not a baby. Sorry for that fact.
Like · Reply · 4 mins
Frank It’s a fetus.
Like · Reply · 4 mins
Me That is your opinion, which flies in the face of scientific research. Calling it a fetus is symantics. Fetus is Latin for offspring.
Like · Reply · 3 mins
Me Not tumor.
Like · Reply · 3 mins
Bob Again your religion opinion.
Not your body.
Not your choice.
You have no uterus, you have no part in the discussion of a medical issue between a woman and her healthcare provider.
Not your choice.
Like · Reply · 3 mins
Me I used to reside in a uterus.
Like · Reply · 2 mins
Frank That’s a long stretch.
Like · Reply · 2 mins
Me No, I have pictures!
Like · Reply · 2 mins
Frank Just because you resided in one doesn’t mean you controlled it.
Like · Reply · 2 mins
Frank Your mother controlled what happened in that uterus. She decided to have you. That has nothing to do with you now and you have nothing to do with any other human’s uterus.
Like · Reply · 1 min · Edited
Me Wow. Just wow. And I’m stretching?
Like · Reply · Just now
Frank Also, fetus is the term used for an organism that has been conceived after the 8 week period. So even then, it’s still not a baby.
Frank Yes, you are stretching. You are stating you have a say on how another human’s reproductive organs are maintained because you “resided in one”.
Like · Reply · 5 mins
Me Doesn’t work. We use the terms zygote, fetus, infant, toddler, child, teenager, adult, elder. All these terms describe different stages of human development, but all presuppose that we are talking about a human being. (Unless of course, we’re talking about donkeys, monkeys, etc.) Calling someone a child doesn’t mean negate their personhood. Calling someone an adult doesn’t negate their personhood.
Like · Reply · 3 mins
Me Look, I’ve got to go to work. I can’t keep arguing down the rabbit hole with you guys. I wish you well, and I hope that someday you will see the truth for what it is.
Like · Reply · 1 min
Frank Very true. I am happy you know the stages of the development. However, that does not change the fact that if a zygote or fetus is removed from the womb, before their actual birth, that they can live without their host.
Like · Reply · 1 min
Frank Running away because he feels he “lost”.
Like · Reply · 1 min
Frank I thought this discussion was a matter of life and death for people. Well, not this particular discussion, but the general topic. Why run away from that for a little bit of money?
Like · Reply · Just now
Me Wow.
Me because I have a house full of persons with birth certificates I need to feed this week.
Like · Reply · 2 mins
Frank Well, don’t spend that money on meat because that’s murder.
Like · Reply · 2 mins
Frank Oh wait. Back to what I originally said on that one. Right, animals don’t have souls.
Sarah When people are treated as individuals and not groups then it all becomes much more understandable...
I wonder how many people who don’t understand these things actually go and seek out the other sides point of view. ...See More
Like · Reply · 3 · 1 hr
Bob It will never be your body.
It will never be your choice.
Isn’t it immoral to pre-judge someone else in a situation you will never face.
