Post Reply
Page 1 of 5  •  1 2 3 4 5 Next
Switch to Forum Live View Prolife Nonsense!
6 years ago  ::  Oct 19, 2007 - 11:28AM #1
itsacrucifiction
itsacrucifiction
Posts: 2,687
The followiong argument was offered by a PL in the discussion "Right to Life for the Unborn is Imaginary;"

1.Objects created by human beings, such as a bicycle can not be used to define personhood.
2. The Constitution is an object created by human beings.
3. Therefore, the Constitution can not be used to define personhood.

I think insipid, vacuous and inane arguments such as the one above, serve as proof positive that classes in logic should be mandatory in our schools. If we see this level of ignorance, stupidity and wholly invalid arguments being given in our society, by what are presumed to be grown adults, our education system is obviously failing our children.

How absurd is it to pretend there is no difference between a bicycle and the Constitution? Given that the Constitution has been used to determine lack of personhood for the unborn, it is obvious the Constitution can be used as such.

The most extreme stupidity of the argument can be shown by considering the following;

If a dictionary becamse necessary as reference to clarify terms in the debate, it actually could not be used because a dictionary is a 'created thing.'
Quick Reply
Cancel
6 years ago  ::  Oct 19, 2007 - 11:35AM #2
Redkim
Redkim
Posts: 5,153
Your argument would be better served if you do not resort to denigrating what was said. Right now you are coming across as nothing more than a juvenile delinquent throwing a tantrum because somebody threw a wrench into his argument.
Kim
The Inconvenience of Dorothy Day
on Faith, Fiction, and Flannery
Quick Reply
Cancel
6 years ago  ::  Oct 19, 2007 - 12:02PM #3
itsacrucifiction
itsacrucifiction
Posts: 2,687
[QUOTE=redkim;8121]Right now you are coming across as nothing more than a juvenile delinquent throwing a tantrum because somebody threw a wrench into his argument.[/QUOTE]

You propose arguments that would disallow one to refer to a dictionary to clarify terms. I will leave it as an exercise for the reader to determine who is being juvenile.
Quick Reply
Cancel
6 years ago  ::  Oct 19, 2007 - 12:07PM #4
Redkim
Redkim
Posts: 5,153
Dictionaries don't clarify terms. They merely contain the clarification. People clarify terms and put them in the dictionary. The dictionary cannot clarify them in and of itself
Kim
The Inconvenience of Dorothy Day
on Faith, Fiction, and Flannery
Quick Reply
Cancel
6 years ago  ::  Oct 19, 2007 - 12:11PM #5
itsacrucifiction
itsacrucifiction
Posts: 2,687
[QUOTE=redkim;8181]Dictionaries don't clarify terms. They merely contain the clarification. People clarify terms and put them in the dictionary. The dictionary cannot clarify them in and of itself[/QUOTE]

Yet one could not use a dictionary to clarify terms in a discussion, since it is a 'created thing' which is somehow not allowed, to hear you tell it.

We all know what this is about. You want to define the terms according to the teachings of the pope. We don't do that with respect to abortion or anything else. We are a secular nation governed by the Constitution. Get over it.
Quick Reply
Cancel
6 years ago  ::  Oct 19, 2007 - 12:17PM #6
Redkim
Redkim
Posts: 5,153
LOL.....No created things cannot determine who is a person, which of course has nothing to do with using a dictionary to help clarify the use of terms in a discussion.

And I find it rather pre-judgemental of you to decide you know where my motives are originating from when I haven't even discussed abortion with you yet!
Kim
The Inconvenience of Dorothy Day
on Faith, Fiction, and Flannery
Quick Reply
Cancel
6 years ago  ::  Oct 19, 2007 - 12:22PM #7
itsacrucifiction
itsacrucifiction
Posts: 2,687
[QUOTE=redkim;8204]LOL.....No created things cannot determine who is a person, [/QUOTE]

It's not about who is and is not a person, but how legal personhood was derived from the Constitution in the Roe decision.

[QUOTE=redkim;8204]
And I find it rather pre-judgemental of you to decide you know where my motives are originating from when I haven't even discussed abortion with you yet![/QUOTE]

I find my prejudgements were correct. Go review the posts last night where I stated any time I see a level of nonsense this high religion is almost always involved.

The fact is, we are a secular nation and legal personhood is determined using the Constitution and the interpretations of it by our judges. To claim the Constitution can't be used because it is a 'thing created by humans' is nonsense. It is nothing but a ridiculous condition meant to exclude the Constitution so that you can inevitably drag the pope's ideas of morality into a discussion of law in a secular nation. The pope's thoughts on abortion have no bearing on our law.

Aside from that, you religion is a 'thing created by humans,' so also would not be allowed into the dicussion by your own exclusions.
Quick Reply
Cancel
6 years ago  ::  Oct 19, 2007 - 12:35PM #8
Redkim
Redkim
Posts: 5,153
[Quote:]
Originally Posted by redkim 
LOL.....No created things cannot determine who is a person,

It's not about who is and is not a person, but how legal personhood was derived from the Constitution in the Roe decision.



It is EXACTLY about who is and who is not a person.


[Quote:]
Originally Posted by redkim 
And I find it rather pre-judgemental of you to decide you know where my motives are originating from when I haven't even discussed abortion with you yet!

I find my prejudgements were correct. Go review the posts last night where I stated any time I see a level of nonsense this high religion is almost always involved.



I have not gotten religion involved at all. You believe I am talking nonsense because you don't understand what I am saying. I have been nothing but respectful and clear about what I am saying.

The fact is, we are a secular nation and legal personhood is determined using the Constitution and the interpretations of it by our judges. To claim the Constitution can't be used because it is a 'thing created by humans' is nonsense. It is nothing but a ridiculous condition meant to exclude the Constitution so that you can inevitably drag the pope's ideas of morality into a discussion of law in a secular nation. The pope's thoughts on abortion have no bearing on our law.



Again, pre-judging what my motives are.

Aside from that, you religion is a 'thing created by humans,' so also would not be allowed into the dicussion by your own exclusions.



You might want to take careful note that I have not brought up religion in this topic, nor do I intend to. I purposely did not state what my unifying source is because I wanted to avoid having the discussion devolve into one on religion. I believe that all human beings believe in a unifying source, but I also recognize that many do not believe that unifying source is God. This is why I asked you what yours was. I wanted us to get to a point of commonality, and not be at a point of contention.

Kim
The Inconvenience of Dorothy Day
on Faith, Fiction, and Flannery
Quick Reply
Cancel
6 years ago  ::  Oct 19, 2007 - 12:44PM #9
pIrish
pIrish
Posts: 181
I actually don't like the idea that the Constitution can be used to describe personhood, not particularly because it was made by man, but because of what that could possibly entail. Not only can it be used to describe who is a person, but it can also describe who isn't. And that's what I don't like. Claiming that an old person, a homeless person, or a Latino person are worth less than others would be terrible. It has happened before (three-fifths compromise). What's to say it wouldn't happen again? People are people. End of story. It doesn't have to be written in the Constitution to make that known.

I don't particularly think that the Constitution should be brought into the abortion debate at all, by either side. The abortion debate is fairly limited to medical issues and moral issues (ie: fetus versus child or pro-life versus pro-choice). It's already confusing enough with just those issues. No reason to make it worse by throwing in the Constitution as well (especially since it won't likely ever change to favor one group or the other).
Quick Reply
Cancel
6 years ago  ::  Oct 19, 2007 - 12:46PM #10
Redkim
Redkim
Posts: 5,153
finally someone with some common sense!
Kim
The Inconvenience of Dorothy Day
on Faith, Fiction, and Flannery
Quick Reply
Cancel
Page 1 of 5  •  1 2 3 4 5 Next
Post Reply
 
    Viewing this thread :: 0 registered and 1 guest
    No registered users viewing
    Advertisement

    Beliefnet On Facebook