Retro vintage lady laughing

trash 1950s """"""meme"""""" to own the libs

A lot less than the policies of Democrats have killed, for sure. Actively causing damage is not justifiable based on the inaction of another. Republicans and Democrats adopt but only Democrats actively seek to kill children and support organizations which do so. It is the central tenant of their platform which is a major, if not THE major hill they will die on. Adoption is on the RNC platform while abortion is on the DNCs. So, it could be said that you are begging the question by making the assumption that Repubs don't adopt. Even if they didn't though - killing innocent unborn children is wrong. BTW, I don't think the RNC is doing enough to stop this scourge and that makes them immoral in a different way. On this issue though - the Dems should just shut up as they don't have a leg to stand on.

It isn't? Then what is being killed? It's an unborn child and they even sell the body parts. It's not a car with car parts. It's a baby. That's what women get pregnant with - babies.

Biological human life begins at conception. A fetus, an embryo and a blastocyst are all stages of unborn humans after conception. They are described as "offspring". Therefore they qualify as an unborn baby as they aren't fully developed yet.

Please excuse me but why should another human being’s being allowed to live or die be based on YOUR OPINION?? No offence but your opinion and even mine is irrelevant to this subject. Furthermore it is subjective. Everyone has one so why should we listen to yours. How about we stick to FACTS, LOGIC and MORALITY? They don’t change, while our opinions do. Someone else could have a different opinion and so on.

What are the facts? We both agree with the FACT that life begins at conception – That is good. We have a human being at the lift off point!!!

What gives human beings value? That is important because if a human or anything else has no value then it or they can be discarded. Your opinion is that humans who aren’t fully developed don’t have value. This is problematic because newborns aren’t fully developed either and your criteria would apply to them. It would also apply to humans at even 18 years of age. So, basing the right to life on development doesn’t seem to work. And why should that be the criteria? Someone else is going to say brain function, so why should it be the criteria over all others? It’s subjective and arbitrary.

What is personhood and why should my right to life depend on some made up term like “personhood”? Again, it’s subjective. Why should you be able to conjure up a bar which humans have live up to or if they fail to do so then they lose their right to life? What if someone came up with some criteria which included you?

Consider this regarding the question of value. You would need to come up with a criteria which ALL humans have and we would have to have it equally. Fully developed humans shouldn’t have more of a right to life than less developed humans. We aren’t equal in that area. Size doesn’t meet any standard either. There is only one quality all humans share and share equality – our common human nature. It is what gives us human equality. Every other criteria imposes an elitism on those with less of some arbitrary criteria. It’s how we get genocides. Some other human decides another’s worth. That is what you are doing unwittingly.

Thanks for weighing in. I am afraid that you misunderstand the nature of morality and you are confusing it with opinion. Opinions are subjective and morality is objective. Your opinion can be in alignment with morality or not. Your opinion is not right or wrong- morality is right or wrong. A plantation owner in the Mississippi in 1820 could have an opinion that slavery is right but that doesn’t make it so. In the same way, you could have an opinion that killing an innocent human being because they are inconvenient is morally right, but that doesn’t make it so. If morality was subjective then you can’t say that Hitler was wrong, slavery was wrong or gay bashing is wrong. It would be one person’s opinion against another’s. We really do know that these things are wrong regardless of the opinions of Hitler or a slave owner. So, it’s a self - defeating claim and therefore cannot be true. Good and evil exist and so does right and wrong. You affirm it even when you deny it.

If both the fetus and baby are human then why shouldn’t they birth have rights? You have already agreed with the science – human life begins at conception. Do you believe in human equality? Do Christians have more of a right to life than atheists? Do blacks have more of a right to life than whites? If human equality exists then it applies to all humans. It doesn’t matter that one is smaller, less developed, more dependent, inside another’s body, atheist, black, white or green or yellow. Humans are priceless because we are made in the image of our creator and each are the only one of our kind in the history of the world. There has never been another one of us and after we are gone, there will never be another. You are unique and so is every human being.

PER OUR PREVIOUS THREAD:
Thanks – If real GOOD exists as well as real EVIL – as you agree with- then they are OBJECTIVE. Otherwise, it’s just you opinion against Hitler’s and we could never know anything. You and Hitler would be at a stalemate as your opinion would be no better than his. We all know that what he did was objectively evil and is evil for all people in all places and at all times.

Regarding your moral standards, according to your criteria of subjectivity, Hitler’s moral standards are valid as yours - on your own view. Again, there is a real GOOD and EVIL but your criteria let’s humans make it up and because we can, then Hitler can determine that killing innocent people is GOOD and you have no defense against it. You are fighting with Hitler in the Matrix and there is no objective good or evil inside of it.

You claim that the fetus is not equal and then go on to claim that you believe in human equality. Which is it? That is a contradiction. You cannot have it both ways. A fetus is a human being. Human life begins at conception and a fetus is post conception.

How do YOU define a person and why is it important? Who determines when I am a person? I am fully human at conception so what other hoops do I need to jump through in order to be part of the human family. I’m there at conception- as you agreed with. Adding any layers on top of that denies human equality. You are stating that some humans have less value because…..(fill in the blank).

Last, a cow is not a human and while unique, is not made in the image of the creator. No animals are human and I think we both know that they are different and won’t have to go into arguing the obvious. I hope this helps though.

Thanks. If good and evil really exist then they are objective and mind independent. If they weren’t then it’s just your opinion versus Hitler’s. And who are you to impose your definition of “human flourishing” as the basis for morality? Hitler says something else and according to your own “standard”, your basis for morality is no better than Hitler’s. His basis could be the elimination of Jewish people and that is just as good as your flourishing basis. We get to make it up and it’s subjective – according to you.

There are no “honor killings” in Christianity – that is that it is not condoned. It also doesn’t follow that because Christians fail to live up to the Biblical standard that there is no standard. The Bible actually says that we humans are fallen and imperfect. There is a real RIGHT and WRONG and you are confirming it when you are arguing with me. You think that you are really right.

As for your last statement – the fact that humans are made in the image of their creator is not a scientific but a theological conclusion. You also still have a contradiction with your claim of human equality. It proves too much. If not being fully developed makes one less human and therefore could be destined for the trach heap then it includes children and teens. We are fully human from the moment of conception and there’s no getting around that. Abortion and human equality cannot coexist. Why? Because abortion is based on the notion that some humans are disposable based on your notion of inequality(size, development, location or dependency). Think about it