Sunday, May. 3, 2015    Login | Register           

Legal yet immoral

David Epps's picture

Two weeks ago, six people were killed and 14 wounded in what has been called the “Tucson Tragedy.”

One year ago, 200,000 people were killed and 1.5 million remain homeless as a result of a devastating earthquake in the nation of Haiti.

One decade ago, some 3,000 people were killed in Pennsylvania, New York, and Washington, D. C. on Sept. 11.

One generation ago, in January of 1973, the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that the killing of children in the womb was legal. Since that time, in the United States alone, the death toll is 52,000,000 boys and girls who were destroyed without ever having seen the light of day.

We often make the grave error of believing that if something is legal, then it must be moral and right. At one time in this nation it was legal for one human being to own another. Slavery was legal and many believed it to be right. No one believes this was moral and right today. It may have been legal but it was immoral.

At one time in this nation, husbands could beat, mistreat, and rape their wives without fear of legal consequences. No one believes this was moral and right today. It may have been legal but it was immoral.

At one time in this nation, children could be exploited and abused almost without restriction. In fact, if one desired to protect children, laws protecting the abuse of animals had to be invoked because there were no such laws protecting children. No one believes this was moral and right today. It may have been legal but it was immoral.

There is nothing moral or right about the destruction of any innocent life, but multiply this by 52 million and the results are horrific beyond comprehension.

Americans have killed nearly six times more unborn children than Hitler and the Nazis killed Jews during World War II.

The United States, since the first shots of the revolution were fired, has been involved in 30 wars, including the various Indian wars, the Boxer Rebellion, the Barbary Wars, as well as more modern conflicts in Somalia, Bosnia, El Salvador, and the major wars of which we are all familiar.
The total number of U.S. military personnel killed during the entire history of the United States from 1775 through 2010 is 1,317,588.

Tragic as that is, it pales in comparison to the number of American pre-born intentional deaths. There have been approximately 50 times more children killed since 1973 than the number of soldiers killed during the entire history of the Republic.

But even that is not the full story. I was born in 1951. From me came three children. From them were born 11 more children, my grandchildren. That means that in three generations there have been produced, so far, 15 people.

Had I been aborted, it would have meant, not just one death, but the elimination of 15 people who are alive today.

If only 10 people are given to a family in three generations, that means that not just 52,000,000 lives have been ended but, rather, a staggering 520 million!

Over half a billion people do not or will not exist over the course of three generations, thanks to an act that is legal. But moral? Right? Not by a long shot.

In the days to come — at some point — I have a dream and a fervent hope that abortion will join slavery, wife rape, and child abuse on the trash heap of acts that used to be legal but were so morally wretched and ethically repugnant that society could no longer bear them.

Not everything legal is moral or right.

[David Epps is the pastor of the Cathedral of Christ the King, 4881 Hwy. 34 E., Sharpsburg, GA 30277. Services are held Sundays at 8:30 and 10 a.m. (www.ctkcec.org). He is the bishop of the Mid-South Diocese (www.midsouthdiocese.org) and is the mission pastor of Christ the King Fellowship in Champaign, IL. He may be contacted at frepps@ctkcec.org.]

Comments

A caterpillar is part of a butterfly's life cycle.
It is not, however, a butterfly.

An acorn is a part of an oak tree's life cycle.
It is not, however, an oak tree

A zygote is part of a human being's life cycle.
It is not, however, a human being.

Insisting that a caterpillar is a butterfly, that an acorn is an oak tree, or that a zygote is a human being is to be willfully ignorant of basic science.

Those that insist that abortion is immoral because they consider a zygote to be a human being are enabling scientific ignorance.

<b>Bacon/Sniffles/Basmati-</b>

Every embryology textbook in every medical college in America says your poem is scientifically incorrect.

No new material is added to the human DNA from 9 days old until 99 years old.

Let me help you complete your poem (with another stanza) that carries it to its logical conclusion.

--A newborn is not an adult. Her ability to be self-aware hasn't developed.

--Those who insist killing a newborn is immoral are enabling scientific ignorance.

I sure hope your sales job doesn't involve having to present real science.

Here is where your premise falls apart.

A newborn is part of a human being's life cycle.
It IS, however, a human being.

Using your inane logic, night is day, at an early stage.

Keep those logical fallacies of yours coming!

PTC Observer got it right in that any excuse Bacon proposes to kill a preborn human works just as well to kill other groups of humans at other stages of development.

Chris ole buddy, people may be noticing that you did not refute the science you simply said you disagreed.

zygote,fetus,newborn, child,adult, senior citizen--all stages yes but all equally human.

It's your logic that breaks down.

Here's some more science for you. The human heartbeat starts at 19-23 days after fertilization. Thus, every surgical abortion stops a beating human heat.

Does that bother you?

PS-FYI neither night nor day is human-just so you know.

I forgot to mention for those fans of logic that Bacon-sniffles-basmati is using a logical fallacy known as the parts vs whole argument.

To say a car isn't a car until it rolls off the end of the assembly line is true. Throw some bumpers and tires on the floor and they never (without outside help) form themselves into a complete automobile.

The preborn are, from fertilization, complete, distinct, and whole members of the human race. As such, no <b>new</b> information is added to the DNA for the rest of natural life. Unlike the automobile, they are not parts of a whole they are the complete human package requiring only time and nutrition.

This is why his Oak Tree and acorn analogies et al fail the test of logic.

Observerofu's picture

that sdg is correct.

"Neither the wisest constitution nor the wisest laws will secure the liberty and happiness of a people whose manners are universally corrupt"
-Samuel Adams
Illegitimi non carborundum

I won't continue a discussion with a person who insists that the word "acorn" is little more than a synonym for "oak tree".

I didn't say they were synonymous.

When you can't (not won't) refute the science-you change the argument. Nice try -but let me pull in one person from your side of the argument.

Referring to when human life begins, Planned Parenthood’s former president Dr. Alan Guttmacher said “This all seems so simple and evident that it [human life beginning at conception] is difficult to picture a time when it wasn’t part of the common knowledge.” (Life in the Making, Viking Press, 1933.)

Better brush on your science my friend.

Way back in 1933 they used arsenic to treat syphillis, too. Ask your mother if you don't believe me.

Scientific knowledge has advanced quite a bit since 1933, even if you haven't.

Insulting someone's family means that you've just run of intellectual firepower on the arguments at hand.

I'm sure your mother and family are fine people. I guess you're just too timid to go toe to toe with someone on the medical science with the laws of logic as the backdrop.

Rather than refute medical textbooks, you like to write poems about lovely butterflies and oak trees.

Here's a news flash --Human embryology is a lot different than flowers and trees.

Let me know when you're ready to debate on the medical science.

[quote=sdg]Insulting someone's family means that you've just run of intellectual firepower on the arguments at hand.I'm sure your mother and family are fine people. I guess you're just too timid to go toe to toe with someone on the medical science with the laws of logic as the backdrop.
Rather than refute medical textbooks, you like to write poems about lovely butterflies and oak trees. Here's a news flash --Human embryology is a lot different than flowers and trees.Let me know when you're ready to debate on the medical science.[/quote]

Insulting your family? Oh, my goodness, I would <strong>never</strong> do that to you. I simply assumed your mother was old enough to remember the pre-penicillin days. You must be younger than I thought....perhaps you should ask your grandmother about those days. Oh, and if its the word "syphillis" that is giving you a case of the Christian Vaporsâ„¢, ask them about how polio was treated back in their day. Science has come a long way, baybeee!

I'm not afraid to go toe-to-toe with a towering intellectual genius such as yourself, but I must admit I am rather bored with your kind trotting out the same old half-truths and lies.

You claim to want to have a debate, yet you insist one of the ground rules is for me to stipulate that a clump of cells is the functional equivalent of a human being. Not gonna happen. You can delude yourself all you like, but I'm not going to indulge your delusion.

So, where does that leave us? Well, I for one am content to sit here and make fun of you and your silly arguments.

David Epps feels compelled every now and then to bless us with a column bemoaning for the lack of government regulation of morality, specifically Christian morality. It was fun holding some Fundie feet to the fire the first two or three times this happened, but quite frankly it's gotten a bit stale lately.

The Wedge's picture

I am not suggesting that you should be a spokesperson for anything, nor am I foolish enough to claim that the bad things that befall people are a result of them mocking God. It just seems that you could use some more fiber in your diet. What you type exhibits evidence of constipation.

Observerofu's picture

with bacon. Insults ranging from the personal to the extreme including your family is standard fare with the citizens "curmudgeon of record".

View these to get an idea of just who you are dealing with.

http://www.thecitizen.com/articles/10-05-2010/volunteers-raise-roof-and-...

Starting with Comment #3. Note the made up information and the hateful rhetoric with comment #15. Note statements made as facts but when challenged he is unable to backup those "facts".

Just wanted you to be aware of who you are dealing with.

This will help you also.

http://www.thecitizen.com/node/5259#comment-20587
See comment #12

"Neither the wisest constitution nor the wisest laws will secure the liberty and happiness of a people whose manners are universally corrupt"
-Samuel Adams
Illegitimi non carborundum

Ah yes, the debate about "Christian Predators". Good times.

Scaring frightened and impressionable teenagers...it's amazing that some people think that's what you need to do to be a good Christian.

Too bad you weren't man enough to go on record with your own opinion about those Christian Predator centers in that thread, oofu. That's getting to be a bit commonplace with you lately, you won't state your opinion, you just criticize others (and stalk me).

It was fun watching Hutch "move the goalposts" during that debate. His final position ended up being something along the lines of "How can you be against child molesters when you've never personally met a child molester?".

hutch866's picture

Using your own criteria, there you go lying again. all I asked is two simple questions, and you only answered one, dodged the other one, because you didn't have an answer. So go ahead and make up some more positions for me, when you don't have an answer, change the terms. I'm still waiting for you to show me where I criticized you on that post, yet another lie from you. Of course you can try to prove me wrong, but you won't you lying POS.

I yam what I yam

Hutch, you seem to labor under the false impression that my purpose on this board is to answer your constant barrage of questions.

I'm not here for you to practice your cross-examination skillz.

I offered my opinion on these Christian Predator centers. Rather than offer your own opinion of these Predator centers, you instead started peppering me with "gotcha" questions.

I answered your questions but you didn't like my answers, so you're now claiming I "didn't" answer your questions.

Here's a novel idea for you to consider: instead of coming into these threads and passing judgement and/or derailing threads because you don't like the poster, why not grow a pair and offer your own opinion.

Take right now for example. This is a thread concerning the morality of abortion. Care to take a stand and make an argument pro or con?

hutch866's picture

Just two little questions, and you run like Hell, when you can't offer a fact, or refute a fact, you throw it off on opinion. Still haven't shown me where I criticized you on that thread, but, did make up some opinions and assigned them to me, which by the standards that you profess to have, makes you a liar, yet one more time. Maybe you can show where child molesters was even in that thread, well, no you can't, because that wasn't even in that thread. For someone who likes to call people liars, you seem to spend a lot of time doing it yourself. You were the one who brought me into this thread, using yet ANOTHER lie I might add. Don't like my response, you know the three choices you have(btw, if I remember right, and I do, YOU were the last one to cry to Cal about terms of service, and I noticed that Cal never edited AHG). I also find it funny that you would tell me to grow a pair, when you showed your lack of bits just a couple weeks ago. Abortion, don't believe in it, but wouldn't tell someone that they couldn't do it, especially since there's no way I could prove whether or not I would have an abortion. So Bacon, when you finally grow some bits, get back to me. My offer still stands.

I yam what I yam

Okay, lets review your "two little questions", once again.

<strong>Question 1: you wanted to know if I personally knew anyone who'd had had experience with a Christian Predator center. </strong>The insinuation here is that unless I knew someone personally, my opinion was somehow "invalid". I told you then that I did not know anyone personally who had experience with the Christian Predator center, but I also felt that I did not know someone personally to form an opinion about an organization. I offered up the cretins at the Westboro Baptist Church as another example of forming an opinion about something without having personal knowledge. I stand by my opinion.

<strong>Question 2: you stated if I didn't know somebody personally at the Christian Predator center, how am I any different than the propoganda of a Mooselimb Terra-ist?</strong> (that's a paraphrase).

Gosh, Hutch, is that a "gotcha" question or what? For the record, I don't consider my opinion to be "propaganda" and I don't consider myself to be a Mooselimb Terra-ist.

Have I now answered both of your questions "for the record" to your satisfaction?

hutch866's picture

[quote=hutch866]Just curious, have you ever talked to anyone that has dealt with this place, or is this the same broad brush you rail against when it's about the Muslims? Is your propaganda any different then theirs?[/quote]

Those were the questions, not what you just posted, (even by the paraphrase standard). Gosh Bacon it seems you're just incapable of telling the truth. Ignore the rest Bacon, it just makes you look worse then your last couple of posts.

I yam what I yam

[quote=Hutch866]Just curious, have you ever talked to anyone that has dealt with this place, or is this the same broad brush you rail against when it's about the Muslims? [/quote]

Your insinuation here is that unless I knew someone personally, my opinion was somehow "invalid". I told you then that I did not know anyone personally who had experience with the Christian Predator center, but I also felt that I did not know someone personally to form an opinion about an organization. I offered up the cretins at the Westboro Baptist Church as another example of forming an opinion about something without having personal knowledge. I stand by my opinion.

Calling something "broad brush" is your own personal opinion. I disagree with your conjecture that my opinion is somehow "broad brush" in nature.

As an aside, your question is a classic <a href+http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/false-dilemma.html">False Dilemma Logical Fallacy</a>, where (IF NOT (Personal Knowledge) THEN (Broad Brush).

[quote=Hutch866]Is your propaganda any different then theirs? [/quote]

Gosh, Hutch, is that a "gotcha" question or what? For the record, I don't consider my opinion to be "propaganda" and I don't consider myself to be a Mooselimb Terra-ist.

I've now answered your questions for the third time.

I hope directly quoting your questions helps with your OCD.

hutch866's picture

OK Bacon, lets recap as you would say, you don't know anything about this place, have never talked to anyone that works there or has been there, why the place isn't even built yet, and you've formed an opinion about it. Yeah, you're right, no broad brush there (eyes rolling). As to quoting the questions, just showing how you weasel word.

I yam what I yam

Let's use your logic here.

<strong>Does a person have to know any child molesters personally in order to have an opinion about them?</strong>

If someone doesn't know a child molester personally, wouldn't their opinion be considered "broad brush" by your standard?

hutch866's picture

That's not my logic, there you go again assigning me opinions again. Not at all Bacon, I don't have to know a molester personally to know he's bad, but you're criticizing a place that you know nothing about, that would be like me calling you a child molester, I don't know if you are, and would reserve comment until you were caught and convicted.

I yam what I yam

Thank you for being man enough to admit that you have two separate standards for evaluating opinions: one standard for yourself and one for everyone else. I suspect a large number of conservatives do that, but you're the first conservative on this site who has actually admitted it.

hutch866's picture

Not what I admitted at all, but like always, you have to twist things. I do love the way it's alright for you to do it though. Still waiting for you to show me where in that thread I criticized you. Oh that's right, that's just another one of your lies. Like you said, you have standards, just happen to be low ones it appears.

I yam what I yam

carbonunit52's picture

The fertilized human egg contains all of the DNA it will ever have, however the 6-foot-long DNA molecule does not contain enough code to account for the complexity of the human brain, indicating that the fertilized egg is not a complete human being until its evolution from a single cell is completed. When that occurs is debatable.

A law against abortion will not prevent abortions under the current circumstances by any meaningful amount, it will only serve to drastically increase unsafe abortions, but abortion rates would plummet if every child was welcomed in this world and prevention was given the same credence as self-righteousness.

The good father's numbers on abortion would be much higher if he used the number of fertilized eggs prevented from attaching to the wall of the uterus by birth control pills.

I've listened and read lectures by genetic scientists on the completeness of the fully human DNA at end of the fertilization process and not one of them agrees with your statement.

By their own admission, there still a lot we don't know in this area, but even past presidents of Planned Parenthood admit that human life begins (see quote below) at the end of fertilization when diploid cells are complete.

I'd love to hear your source for just how you know your first paragraph is true.

carbonunit52's picture

[quote]I'd love to hear your source for just how you know your first paragraph is true.[/quote]
I would like to see your sources that says it is not true. You are the doubter, not I. To be honest, I read a lot, and I do not remember where I read it, but it was not part of a discussion. It is easy to believe, given the complexity of the human brain, and the universe that resides within each living cell.

Life force is energy, and the first law of thermodynamics states that energy cannot be created or destroyed. Human life is there already, as both the sperm and egg are already alive. Now when they meet up, they form a complete DNA structure, that goes on, by processes not completely understood by us, to evolve into a unique human being.

My main point is this: no law can be written and enforced, in our society, that will put a dent in the number of abortions. Such a law could easily be used to deny use of popular birth control and to prosecute a woman who had a miscarriage, if she is charged with neglect. Bottom line is, a law and its enforcement are not a solution to abortion.

provide a source. BTW-with all due respect you made an assertion about the science that I wanted you to back up with a source -no disrespect for your opinion but I doubted you had a source.

Human Embryology & Teratology (medical college textbook pg 8 3rd edition) "fertilization ... is a critical landmark because ... a <b>new,genetically distinct, human organism is formed when the chromosomes... blend in the oocyte"</b>

This is what I said - the preborn are whole, distinct, and complete members of the human family and, as such, they should not be killed with just cause.

Now it's your turn. You made a bold claim about the science. Can you back it up??????

How many times does the word "preborn" occur in that medical college textbook you like to quote?

It doesn't appear one single time, I'd wager, because "preborn" is a neologism coined by fundamentalist Christians to advance their agenda, in much the same manner as "partial birth abortion".

People that use the words "preborn" and/or "partial birth abortion" are not interested in debate, they're here to advance their agenda by any means necessary, even if it means declaring "acorn" as a synonym for "oak tree".

carbonunit52's picture

I asked you to show me that my statement was not true. You replied with a known fact about the fertilized egg. When the egg is fertilized, there is one molecule of DNA present. There is not enough code in this one molecule to produce a human being: <a href="http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-skeptical-brain/201101/genetics-....
A simple Google search was sufficient. A human being is much more than DNA, an oak tree is much more than an acorn, and the carbonunit is much more than a biological computer.

It is fun. Call the medical school at Emory if their textbooks are not enough for you.

I'll be sure to read your post completely but at first glance this guy is described as a <b>"literary scholar"</b> who became a psychiatrist. A far,far, cry from a technical textbook used in medical school wouldn't you say?

carbonunit52's picture

The fact is that it takes DNA plus a process to be a human being, therefore, prior to the process taking place, DNA alone is not a human being. The difference here is that this fact does not challange any of my agendas, and it does challange yours.

You seem like a smart guy and I appreciate your civil tone coupled with an honest debate on the science. At least we have common ground on one point. If the unborn is something other than a human being, then I don't care if you have a hundred abortions. If it were like having a mole removed or your own tooth pulled,who cares?

Our problem is that none of the science supports that position. You quoted a literary writer turned psychoanalyst and put his speculation about chromosomal development on the same level an embryology professor.

Ok- for debate purposes, let's say the guy's untested conjecture is true.

It would seem that you've just given yourself two major questions to answer.

1-Where does it come from?
2-When does this information arise?

Number two is troublesome to the pro-abort advocate since mere weeks into pregnancy, we have the organs formed, unique fingerprints,a beating human heart, measurable brain wave activity (the newest development in embryology now indicates that fetal memories may form at 29-30 weeks) etc. So (scientifically) both sides ought to be against killing an innocent human being at that point in time.

Your argument, as I understand it, contends that the information for the above development that all humans experience (if allowed to live long enough) isn't present at fertilization but is somehow added later.

There is no known scientific process where we can demonstrate that coded information comes from anything except prior information. So-if you're saying the instructions for human development such as for a teenage boy to start growing a beard or an embryo to develop the above mentioned qualities isn't hard wired into the initial DNA -when and how does it get added?

Mutations might be what some propose but mutations normally serve to reduce or corrupt already existing information. In the lab, we've mutated hundreds of generations of fruit flies et al and we see no evidence of new information being introduced.

I'm sure you are aware of the fraud by Ernst Haeckel who proposed that the embryo went through evolution stages (fish gill slits that evolve into lungs) as it (supposedly) became human. This was discredited as fraud (Haeckel doctored his drawings) years ago.

Thus if you're contending all that make us human is added to the DNA at a point subsequent to conception and the completion of fertilization then --

where's it come from and when is it added?

carbonunit52's picture

No one I believe is pro-abortion, it is called pro-choice for a reason. What I do not want to occur is any law stating that human life begins at conception because the potential for abuse is enormous. I have made my point a few times, and from here on we will have to agree to disagree. If you are against abortions, first off, do not get one, secondly work to make sure that every baby born into this world will be welcomed and provided for. In my humble opinion, if pro-lifers were really pro-life, I would see them rallying against civilian casualties in all the armed conflicts around the globe.

Carbonunit, I found this link that is an excellent summation of the arguments going on here: <a href="http://www.elroy.net/ehr/abortionanswers.html">Why Abortion is Moral</a>

It basically asks 6 pertinent questions of people:<ol>
<li>Is it ALIVE?</li>
<li>Is it HUMAN?</li>
<li>Is it a PERSON?</li>
<li>Is it PHYSICALLY INDEPENDENT?</li>
<li>Does it have HUMAN RIGHTS?</li>
<li>Is abortion MURDER?</li></ol>
.
I think our friend SDG is hung up on question 2, and in the interests of being fair and balanced (albeit in a Fox News sorta way), I'm hung up on question 3.

(BTW, my short answers are yes, yes, not yet, no, no and no).

for the prompt response. I still think the logic is bad

"If you are against abortions, first off, do not get one"
=====extended logically======
-If you are against bank robbery don't rob one.

I think I'll work to keep bank robbing illegal.

BTW- I do a bit of work with adoption agencies et.al. and I think you're point there was valid.

[quote=sdg]
BTW- I do a bit of work with adoption agencies et.al. and I think you're point there was valid.[/quote]

Hey sdg, I'm genuinely curious here.

I've found over the years that if you thump a racist hard enough, they often reply that they have "lots of black friends".

I've also noticed that when you thump a pro-lifer hard enough, they often reply that they "work with adoption agencies".

My question to you, then, is....what exactly do you do for these "adoption agencies"?

the short answer to your question is volunteer work for an agency that provides transportation, prenatal medical care funding, and access for the birth mother after adoption.

Now to the HUGE favor I owe you. Your link to Carbon on abortion arguments was something I've been hoping to find for weeks.

I used the think that guys like Peter Singer were the far fringes of the pro abortion choice movement.

But you gave me the link to what appears to be a mainstream pro-abortion site that actually admits that if self-awareness is what confers human rights then a logical case could be made for killing newborns as well as preborns.

The guy doesn't endorse this to be sure but at least he admits the inconsistancy with his position. This is what happens when human life at all ages in not respected (i.e.someone insert the capricious and arbitrary standard). I can use this info-- to thanks again for the source.

the short answer to your question is volunteer work for an agency that provides transportation, prenatal medical care funding, and access for the birth mother after adoption.

Now to the HUGE favor I owe you. Your link to Carbon on abortion arguments was something I've been hoping to find for weeks.

I used the think that guys like Peter Singer were the far fringes of the pro abortion choice movement.

But you gave me the link to what appears to be a mainstream pro-abortion site that actually admits that if self-awareness is what confers human rights then a logical case could be made for killing newborns as well as preborns.

The guy doesn't endorse this to be sure but at least he admits the inconsistancy with his position. This is what happens when human life at all ages in not respected (i.e.someone insert the capricious and arbitrary standard). I can use this info-- to thanks again for the source.

Carbon,
I am pro-life, which is why I carry a gun. I care very much about my family remaining alive and will do everything in my power to protect them from anyone who attempts to harm them.

IMHO, the more abortions that progressives and liberals have, the better.
I just don't want my tax dollars going to pay for them. American tax dollars should not go to fund an unwanted pregnancy for anyone. After all, pregnancy is a choice.

You are pro life and carry a gun so as to shoot someone! A human is a human.
Then you don't care about non-partisan babies of liberals being aborted?

Yes, a lot of 12-13 year olds get pregnant hoping for marriage or someone to feed them!

The point is, it is the woman's or kid's choice--not yours.

when Frau Gym and I were walking over by the Library. Only one GGC (Gas Golf Cart) passed us and as soon as we recovered, I was sure I saw you turned around and grinning at us!

carbonunit52's picture

That was not me, but that is something that I am genetically predispositioned to do. After a rain, my father used to try and splash people as they were walking on the sidewalks after church.

Insofar as refudiating your "science", I've done that many times here in the past and I'm not interested in rehashing the science of embryology or your tortured interpretations of it. I'm not going to convince religious zealots like you to change your opinion and you lack the intellectual firepower to change mine.

With regard to your beating heart argument, a beating heart is not generally accepted as proof of sentience (the general standard for state-change in human development). Again, you and your kind resort to "appeal to emotion" logical fallacies.

PTC Observer's picture

If you destroy a caterpillar you destroy a future butterfly

If you destroy an acorn you destroy a future oak tree

If you destroy a zygote you destroy a future human being

Are these statements illogical?

If not, then you believe that destroying future human beings is OK?

Or should we put it thus, that if we risk destroying life, we should err on the side of life as opposed to speculating when life begins?

Technically, your logic is flawed

Invoking a potential future state (B) as a <strong>consequence</strong> of action (A) is the Fallacy of Untestability (aka the argument to the future).

Future state (B) may or may not become true in the future, it is simply irrelevant to the argument.

Your statement "...you believe that destroying future human beings is OK?" is a logical fallacy known as "appeal to emotion".

PTC Observer's picture

And your response to my last statement?

If PTCO's logic is flawed, then why is future value (i.e., potential future state) considered when determining damages in a wrongful death matter? That is "invoking a potential future state" and as you say, and it "may or may not become true in the future".

Because legal definitions are an altogether different arena from scientific definitions.

For example, if you accept sdg's "whole and complete" blather as gospel, why don't we get the child tax deduction from the moment of conception?

Pages

Ad space area 4 internal

Government

These second graders from Kedron Elementary School led the April 20 Fayette County School Board in the pledge of allegiance. The students, from left, are Tabitha Htoka, Blythie Barrow, and A.J.

Sponsored Content

Sports

Lifestyle

“Flies at the Well,” the exciting new musical re-interpretation of the famous 1948 John Wallace murder trial, had its first staging outside of Newnan last week, April 17-19, at The Fourth Wall, a t