Posts by Grant Dexter
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
You're not being ridiculed
That's the funniest thing I've read all day. Well done! :D
your inconsistency is being pointed out, even though you might not see it as such. Just as you're trying to suggest pro-choice people are being inconsistent by not protesting sufficiently about another country's tangentially related policies. It's no more relevant than questioning pro-life people on their approach to warfare or the death penalty.
:squint: I'm willing to study potential inconsistencies if you like, but I stated quite clearly that I would expect pro-choice people to condemn China's forced abortion practices long before protesting the points I've made here. If people wish to be inconsistent then I will point it out, but it seems to be more a case of people avoiding the subject like the plague. I can make assumptions from that. But I haven't (yet).
:)
As you suggest people have questioned my stance to test my consistency. I've been asked if I would donate organs and I answered that one in a manner consistent with what I believe. I have an opinion on the death penalty and war as well which I'd be happy to share. Since you seem to consider these matters somewhat irrelevant though I guess we should stick to the main question I've been trying to address. That is, given we all agree that a baby at conception is alive and human, what is the nature of humanity and life at such a young age?
-
OK. I don't necessarily want to stray off topic. It was simply an aside to Mark who lives there. It's something I assume most will agree with your analysis of. So if we agree that China's policy is evil then we can get back to the rest of my post :)
-
If you all wanted me to leave you could just ask. But it's really childish to expect that just because you ridicule someone he will throw some toys and run off. Now at the risk of banging a drum, let me reiterate that I did provide us an opportunity to move this conversation forward. I am under the impression that even though most people do not like the fact that at conception we have life and humanity it is grudgingly accepted as fact. At least on some level. So *BAM* can *BAM* we *BAM* move *BAM* on?
As I said before, if we can all accept that at conception a baby is alive and human then the next question becomes the nature of that life and humanity. I notice I am being ridiculed for my belief that my body is mine to decide to do with as I please. If I were asked for a kidney I would be justified in saying yes or no based on the fact that a kidney is my body and mine to keep or donate as I please. As you might guess I would under no circumstances allow a completely unrelated procedure to be done upon my unborn child. You do all realise that this is perfectly non-contradictory to a person who believes that his child is not his wife's body, right?
And since you guys love the word 'conflate' so much I am going to use it right now! Who in their right mind conflates a procedure designed to save lives with a procedure designed to take them?
Anyway, I digress...
So who here believes that at conception a baby is part of the mother's body? If you believe it is a part of the mother's body when do you think it separates? If you believe it separates do you have any scientific evidence for that point or is it simply a philosophical position you hold?
Again I am quite taken aback that none here would join me in condemning the Chinese government. I think I'm being ridiculed because I do not condone the choice people might make to terminate their children's lives. I also condemn other people making that choice for them (it's probably the worst thing I can imagine happening to a woman). How about the "pro-choice" people? Shouldn't pro-choice mean you are even more outraged by a regime that would remove people's right to choose on this most sensitive of topics?
I am interested in how you might collectively respond to simple questions. If all you are going to do is keep hurling abuse and questioning my intellect then perhaps it's a waste of my time. But I'm a guy who lives by faith. Maybe somewhere out there is a respondent who is capable of answering. Perhaps if I just keep believing that for long enough...
-
I am aware, that the Chinese Government asserts authority over some of it's citizens reproductive systems. Kind of like, what your arguing for the right to do.
:squint: You'll have to point out exactly where I have suggested that women with a child should be forced to terminate a subsequent pregnancy because I certainly do not remember posting such a thing.
But unlike the Chinese government, your argument is egocentric.
How is it egocentric to point out facts? I get the distinct impression you do not like the fact that a baby at conception is alive and human. Perhaps if you ridicule me a little more the facts will go away?
So how do you feel about donating one of your kidneys, to a human person that's going to die if you don't?
OH! I see where you're going with this now. Please excuse my slowness. I usually need five minutes warning before anyone changes the topic.
If someone needed one of my kidneys to survive I might donate it. I might not. Would it not be my right to decide what happens with my body?
How does this stack up against a Chinese regime that forces women to have abortions? Do you consider that a reasonable thing for a government to do?
-
Tim:
Something being human doesn't necessarily mean it can be described as having humanity. Easy to say skin cells are human, hard to say they have the property of humanity or personood.
From this I take it you also have accepted that at conception we have life and humanity. I also assume you believe that those two facts do not make the offspring of human beings also a person. What evidence do you have to support this?
Note that I have already specified that personhood only applies to people and that I only claim babies are people based on life and humanity. If you think I am arguing personhood for anything else then you are wrong. I do not claim personhood for hair, skin, viruses or anything else that is not the product of conception and born of the union between a man and a woman.
Steven:
What are you talking about? Either you believe the Chinese government has made it illegal to have brothers and sisters or you don't. Either you believe they force women to have abortions or you don't. What possible point could you have based on me being an organ donor or not..? -
Oh, Steven, please! The Chinese government has a law that makes brothers and sisters illegal and you want to ignore that fact by saying they have exceptions for farmers and earthquake victims? Gimme a break, mate.
Tim. That's a reasonable summation of where we are at. I already posted a division:
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Like that one a few pages ago where I said I had shifted away from the discussion on whether a baby at conception was alive and human to a discussion on the nature of that life and humanity. I would have expected that the simple facts of life and humanity would be fairly easy to accept. Talking about what that means is where it should get difficult. But you lot have taken nine pages trying to come to terms with the simplest of facts.
-
Islander skipping, eh? :think:
Interesting.
I wonder, if so many here believe that at conception there is no life, what is there? Death?
I wonder, if so many here believe that at conception there is no human, what is there? A fish?
-
I wonder if Mark would be aware of the forced abortion policy practiced in his nation of residence? What is it with a nation that makes brothers and sisters illegal? Does an entire nation that oppresses women get a pass while a single guy with two simple facts gets ridiculed?
-
So Crates:
No those are not facts. Those are your beliefs. The fact's are that at conception a sperm joins with an egg to form a single cell that with the right conditions splits and grows. Those cells are not alive, are not a baby and are not human. You keep mistaking your beliefs for facts.
You have a real problem with accepting facts, don't you? Let me clue you in. The source does not make one ounce of difference to the truth of a statement. Nor do the consequences of facts have any bearing upon their truth. It is a fact that at conception a baby is alive. I know you do not want me to use the word, "baby", but until you can show some facts that show my terminology to be wrong I remain perfectly justified in believing what I believe.
It is still you that are on the wrong side of the facts whether or not it turns out that 'baby' is the wrong word to use.
Danielle
We all know why you keep saying 'baby'. It's emotional manipulation; we get it. Trust me, we've all heard this Not-So-Subtle Weaselling routine before.
I'm not trying to be subtle and I am not going to pretend this is not an emotional topic. I believe it to be the defining topic of our generation. I have been nothing but open and honest with what I believe and the facts that support that belief. It seems that the response to open and honest expression is open assault, vulgarity and denial of obvious truths.
Perhaps we could have a more pleasant conversation for a while?
-
PS. Isn't a fertilised egg initially only one cell?