Can you prove it's NOT?

 

Burden of evidence is on you. 

Disproving something like that is hard, its like trying to disprove God.  But because you want to ban it because its "wrong".  You have to prove its "wrong". 

Burden of evidence is on you. 

Disproving something like that is hard, its like trying to disprove God.  But because you want to ban it because its "wrong".  You have to prove its "wrong".

A simple "no" is sufficient.

Burden of evidence is on you. 

Disproving something like that is hard, its like trying to disprove God.  But because you want to ban it because its "wrong".  You have to prove its "wrong".

Boy, you can't come up with a lucid, cognitive thought in a simple 2 sentence post, can you?

The burden of proof is on the person who's destroying life.  The other side of the argument isn't causing death.

He doesn't need to "know" anything to have an opinion.  He has Google. 

First link in the search results to confirm his bias wins.   

Still doesn't know what he's talking about. It's more like follow your favorite Google site.

Sent from my SM-A102U using Tapatalk

Boy, you can't come up with a lucid, cognitive thought in a simple 2 sentence post, can you?

The burden of proof is on the person who's destroying life.  The other side of the argument isn't causing death.

Like I said before you can't prove its alive, so its not a life.  Anyway we have been over this before.  I was just pointing out that religious exemptions can be used to skirt the Christians and other religions crusade against abortion while they preach religious choice.

Like I said before you can't prove its alive, so its not a life.  Anyway we have been over this before.  I was just pointing out that religious exemptions can be used to skirt the Christians and other religions crusade against abortion while they preach religious choice.

You're right.  We went over this already.  And the conclusion was that SCIENCE, not RELIGION, states that a fetus is life that is developing into a human being.  Science has changed since Roe v Wade.  We now know the fetus is more developed mentally than we could determine before.

You keep falling back on your lame religious arguments.  Yet nobody else on here is using religion to support pro-life.  It's science that you can't refute, so you dodge the facts.

Science!

https://2ahawaii.com/index.php?topic=38366.msg341916#msg341916

Burden of evidence is on you. 

Disproving something like that is hard, its like trying to disprove God.  But because you want to ban it because its "wrong".  You have to prove its "wrong".

As we ALREADY SAID, the burden is on you, because you set the criteria as "must be sentient."  Unless you can demonstrate you are NOT KILLING A SENTIENT BEING, then to abort is basically a blind shot in the dark with no science supporting it.  For all you know, you are killing a sentient being, and therefore are committing murder.  I'd want to be able to support my theory that the fetus isn't sentient before committing murder, as should you.

Burden is on the person committing the bigger crime:  abortion right versus right to life.

Burden of evidence is on you. 

Disproving something like that is hard, its like trying to disprove God.  But because you want to ban it because its "wrong".  You have to prove its "wrong".

Prove murder is wrong. You can't yet I suspect you are perfectly fine with laws outlawing it.

Prove murder is wrong. You can't yet I suspect you are perfectly fine with laws outlawing it.

Murder is unlawful because of societal reasons. It's not technically wrong.  We sanction it in the death penalty.  We kill others in self defense. We kill our enemies in war.   But society judges that to be fine.   Religious people used to kill others in the name of religion.
 America is a society that embraces freedom and it should include the freedom over your own body and the right to abort.  In the end society and the majority decide what is right and wrong.   

I would argue the same is true for abortion.  Except we can't prove its sentient.  So it had even less societal or "moral" impacts.  The minority want to ban it.   Society wants to do it.   Thus it should be allowed.  Especially with America's society and its constitution. 

If we can't agree on the science,  cause clearly that is going to go no where.  We agree that religion is not involved. Then maybe we can agree on this.   

As we ALREADY SAID, the burden is on you, because you set the criteria as "must be sentient."  Unless you can demonstrate you are NOT KILLING A SENTIENT BEING, then to abort is basically a blind shot in the dark with no science supporting it.  For all you know, you are killing a sentient being, and therefore are committing murder.  I'd want to be able to support my theory that the fetus isn't sentient before committing murder, as should you.

Burden is on the person committing the bigger crime:  abortion right versus right to life.

Hey Flapp, let me tell you this, no science worshipping here. Go and try to tell a pregnant woman in first trimester that she'll pregnant with fetal tissue. She will tell you that she's pregnant with a baby. And she will add that she can feel the baby's movement and emotions.

Sent from my SM-A102U using Tapatalk

Murder is unlawful because of societal reasons. It's not technically wrong.  We sanction it in the death penalty.  We kill others in self defense. We kill our enemies in war.   But society judges that to be fine.   Religious people used to kill others in the name of religion.
 America is a society that embraces freedom and it should include the freedom over your own body and the right to abort.  In the end society and the majority decide what is right and wrong.   

I would argue the same is true for abortion.  Except we can't prove its sentient.  So it had even less societal or "moral" impacts.  The minority want to ban it.   Society wants to do it.   Thus it should be allowed.  Especially with America's society and its constitution. 

If we can't agree on the science,  cause clearly that is going to go no where.  We agree that religion is not involved. Then maybe we can agree on this.

"Murder" and "killing" (or more technically "homicide") are NOT SYNONYMS.

Murder requires the actor to form intent to end a life without justification.

Killing someone in self defense, as a capital punishment, or even accidentally, is not murder. 

Capital punishment exists to protect everyone who isn't murdering without good justification from those who do.  Some argue that life in prison is cruel and inhumane, so putting murderers to death may be seen as less cruel. 

If I'm being threatened with severe bodily injury or death, I have a natural right to defend my life and STOP THE THREAT with a reasonable amount of force.  If that force I deem necessary at the time includes lethal force, then the CHANCE I MIGHT kill the attacker is real, but not guaranteed.  Now, if I stop the threat, and I walk over to the unconscious attacker putting a round in his head, then that would be murder.  The killing was no longer necessary to survive.

Once again, you keep falling back to arguing against religion -- something NOBODY ELSE HERE is bringing up.  Morality exists in a basic sense even without "society."  People with a realization of what life is and what it means to them will employ EMPATHY for other living creatures.  Parents instill these values and understandings in their children even without a society and book of laws.

The Ten Commandments didn't need to exist for people to know what was wrong above all other wrongs.  Stealing, murder, taking another's wife, lying, and so on all stem from the soon-to-follow Golden Rule.  That one rule is based on the concept of empathy:  Do unto others as you'd have them do unto you. 

Common sense -- not religion, and not "society".  Even wild animals don't kill and eat their own without reason that's driven by instinct.  Protecting their young, protecting a territory, defending against predators -- and not all of it requires killing to succeed.  There's also a food chain, which is a totally separate concept.  We're talking about within a species, e.g. Humans.

If you think the only thing keeping you from murdering another person who isn't a threat to you is "society" or "the legal system", then you'd be what's called a sociopath or psychopath.  On thing all sociopaths lack is empathy as far as researchers have been able to determine.  That's why most of them start out at an early age hurting/killing small animals and pets.  They lack the empathy to imagine what they are doing would be like if done to them.

So, stop with the lectures on "murder is only wrong if somebody decides it's wrong."  Humans have intelligence and emotions that guide us when there is nothing else to do so.  I suspect you belive the concepts of right and wrong never existed before religion and government.  Could not be further from reality.

Do you realize that in most cases, we expend more time, money and resources to make sure we are correct in our death sentences through appeals and reviews -- usually taking years -- to ensure we are not making a mistake than it costs to house them for life?  If only we spent as much time, money and resources ensuring we aren't murdering unborn babies who did nothing "wrong."

"Murder" and "killing" (or more technically "homicide") are NOT SYNONYMS.

Murder requires the actor to form intent to end a life without justification.

Killing someone in self defense, as a capital punishment, or even accidentally, is not murder. 

Capital punishment exists to protect everyone who isn't murdering without good justification from those who do.  Some argue that life in prison is cruel and inhumane, so putting murderers to death may be seen as less cruel. 

If I'm being threatened with severe bodily injury or death, I have a natural right to defend my life and STOP THE THREAT with a reasonable amount of force.  If that force I deem necessary at the time includes lethal force, then the CHANCE I MIGHT kill the attacker is real, but not guaranteed.  Now, if I stop the threat, and I walk over to the unconscious attacker putting a round in his head, then that would be murder.  The killing was no longer necessary to survive.

Once again, you keep falling back to arguing against religion -- something NOBODY ELSE HERE is bringing up.  Morality exists in a basic sense even without "society."  People with a realization of what life is and what it means to them will employ EMPATHY for other living creatures.  Parents instill these values and understandings in their children even without a society and book of laws.

The Ten Commandments didn't need to exist for people to know what was wrong above all other wrongs.  Stealing, murder, taking another's wife, lying, and so on all stem from the soon-to-follow Golden Rule.  That one rule is based on the concept of empathy:  Do unto others as you'd have them do unto you. 

Common sense -- not religion, and not "society".  Even wild animals don't kill and eat their own without reason that's driven by instinct.  Protecting their young, protecting a territory, defending against predators -- and not all of it requires killing to succeed.  There's also a food chain, which is a totally separate concept.  We're talking about within a species, e.g. Humans.

If you think the only thing keeping you from murdering another person who isn't a threat to you is "society" or "the legal system", then you'd be what's called a sociopath or psychopath.  On thing all sociopaths lack is empathy as far as researchers have been able to determine.  That's why most of them start out at an early age hurting/killing small animals and pets.  They lack the empathy to imagine what they are doing would be like if done to them.

So, stop with the lectures on "murder is only wrong if somebody decides it's wrong."  Humans have intelligence and emotions that guide us when there is nothing else to do so.  I suspect you belive the concepts of right and wrong never existed before religion and government.  Could not be further from reality.

Do you realize that in most cases, we expend more time, money and resources to make sure we are correct in our death sentences through appeals and reviews -- usually taking years -- to ensure we are not making a mistake than it costs to house them for life?  If only we spent as much time, money and resources ensuring we aren't murdering unborn babies who did nothing "wrong."

Okay,  I am fine with replacing the world "Murder" with killing.  We kill others when society believes its alright to do so.   Pre-meditated or not.  There's millions of circumstances of why.  From war to a doctor decided what life to save.  I will try reason this under your assumptions that a fetus is "alive human".  Everyone without government or religion values life differently.  One that is productive to society, one that is family etc over others.  A doctor is chosen to live over a drug user, etc.  A mothers life is chosen over a unborn fetus.  This is a natural human reasoning.  The mother can make other children, under normal circumstances.

You say capital punishment might be justified or less cruel than life in prison.  It serves to protect others and society.  Abortion can be the same,  it might be cruel to force the mother to conceive.  It might be cruel to society to be burdened with another unwanted child.  Who might suffer from neglect or abuse and create social problems later in life.  I think its beyond cruel to force a life into this world that isn't wanted.  Imagine if your parents never wanted you, but were forced to have you.  How you would suffer.  Mistakes happen but to force the results of the mistake on someone else much less an innocent child is cruel.  Saying adoption or foster is not a viable solution, we all know those programs are riddled with issues.  Not to mention the parents side of cruelty.  Their lives forever changed, their dreams, ambitions and goals forced to change.  Imagine a highschooler who suffers in school because she is forced to birth a child.  She might not be able to finish school, go college or excel in life. Abortion isnt always just about ending the fetuses "life".  Its about everyone involved and the future involvements of everyone including the future child. 

As for the concepts of right and wrong, they have indeed existed, probably as long as humans existed.  But they still evolved and changed over time.  I don't believe morals are instilled on birth, they are learned.  But because of that they can change, they just happen to not have changed much over time in some aspects. I can't recall any society that criminalized miscarriages.  Abortion is just a purposeful miscarriage.

The whole point of the self defense argument is that valuing ones life over others is perfectly fine and normal.  A mother valuing her life over an unborn fetus is normal (assuming you believe its alive, much more so if you don't) .  You value your life over the other person when you choose to respond with whatever level of force you deem necessary. 

Okay,  I am fine with replacing the world "Murder" with killing.  We kill others when society believes its alright to do so.   Pre-meditated or not.  There's millions of circumstances of why.  From war to a doctor decided what life to save.  I will try reason this under your assumptions that a fetus is "alive human".  Everyone without government or religion values life differently.  One that is productive to society, one that is family etc over others.  A doctor is chosen to live over a drug user, etc.  A mothers life is chosen over a unborn fetus.  This is a natural human reasoning.  The mother can make other children, under normal circumstances.

You say capital punishment might be justified or less cruel than life in prison.  It serves to protect others and society.  Abortion can be the same,  it might be cruel to force the mother to conceive.  It might be cruel to society to be burdened with another unwanted child.  Who might suffer from neglect or abuse and create social problems later in life.  I think its beyond cruel to force a life into this world that isn't wanted.  Imagine if your parents never wanted you, but were forced to have you.  How you would suffer.  Mistakes happen but to force the results of the mistake on someone else much less an innocent child is cruel.  Saying adoption or foster is not a viable solution, we all know those programs are riddled with issues.  Not to mention the parents side of cruelty.  Their lives forever changed, their dreams, ambitions and goals forced to change.  Imagine a highschooler who suffers in school because she is forced to birth a child.  She might not be able to finish school, go college or excel in life. Abortion isnt always just about ending the fetuses "life".  Its about everyone involved and the future involvements of everyone including the future child. 

As for the concepts of right and wrong, they have indeed existed, probably as long as humans existed.  But they still evolved and changed over time.  I don't believe morals are instilled on birth, they are learned.  But because of that they can change, they just happen to not have changed much over time in some aspects. I can't recall any society that criminalized miscarriages.  Abortion is just a purposeful miscarriage.

The whole point of the self defense argument is that valuing ones life over others is perfectly fine and normal.  A mother valuing her life over an unborn fetus is normal (assuming you believe its alive, much more so if you don't) .  You value your life over the other person when you choose to respond with whatever level of force you deem necessary.

You can't predict what anyone's life will be like.  Pretending you can is arrogant.

A person in poverty may write a book, develop a self-help program or marry into money.  I can cite example after example of people who became wealthy and came from humble, if not dire, beginnings.  There's no way for you to guarantee that a child born under any circumstances is sentenced to misery and a "cruel" existence.  Hell, the child may prove to be the reason a junkie mother gets clean, goes back to school, or gets a better job.  Improving one's own situation for the good of the child is a proven motivator for adults who beforehand only had to be responsible for themselves.

Stop playing God.  There are people alive today who should not be based on your criteria of "quality of life", and they grew into great leaders and innovators. 

Necessity is the mother of invention.  Adaptation only happens out of necessity.

You can't predict what anyone's life will be like.  Pretending you can is arrogant.

A person in poverty may write a book, develop a self-help program or marry into money.  I can cite example after example of people who became wealthy and came from humble, if not dire, beginnings.  There's no way for you to guarantee that a child born under any circumstances is sentenced to misery and a "cruel" existence.  Hell, the child may prove to be the reason a junkie mother gets clean, goes back to school, or gets a better job.  Improving one's own situation for the good of the child is a proven motivator for adults who beforehand only had to be responsible for themselves.

Stop playing God.  There are people alive today who should not be based on your criteria of "quality of life", and they grew into great leaders and innovators. 

Necessity is the mother of invention.  Adaptation only happens out of necessity.

People play "god" every day in billions scenarios. Nothing really wrong with that,  also I thought you said religion isn't involved. You would be playing "god" in any self defense scenario, unless you throw up your arms and let your lord do his thing.  But I digress.  Those situations you cited may happen but they are not the norm.  Many more turn out bad and suffer and cause suffering.  Most criminals I would argue don't come from loving stable homes.  That says nothing to the forced parents futures too, they might now have hardships when they wouldn't if they had an abortion.

People play "god" every day in billions scenarios. Nothing really wrong with that,  also I thought you said religion isn't involved. You would be playing "god" in any self defense scenario, unless you throw up your arms and let your lord do his thing.  But I digress.  Those situations you cited may happen but they are not the norm.  Many more turn out bad and suffer and cause suffering.  Most criminals I would argue don't come from loving stable homes.  That says nothing to the forced parents futures too, they might now have hardships when they wouldn't if they had an abortion.

You're saying it's okay to play god?

That pretty much explains all of your opinions on abortion and all other ethical, moral and legal issues.

I find it hypocritical that you're against the norm for a virus that kills less than a percent of most people it infects, but you're all about norms when it comes to rationalizing murder of innocent children who have no chance to reach their potential because you think life is valueless, even after birth, if the parents do not meet some arbitrary financial standard you set.

I'm done with you.  You can't keep your norms straight.

Bye, Felicia.   

You're saying it's okay to play god?

That pretty much explains all of your opinions on abortion and all other ethical, moral and legal issues.

I find it hypocritical that you're against the norm for a virus that kills less than a percent of most people it infects, but you're all about norms when it comes to rationalizing murder of innocent children who have no chance to reach their potential because you think life is valueless, even after birth, if the parents do not meet some arbitrary financial standard you set.

I'm done with you.  You can't keep your norms straight.

Bye, Felicia.   

The norm is support for abortion.  You are the minority.  They did polls to confirm this and is legally federally, and most states don't overly restrict it. Argentina just legalized it!!!! 

Also we went over this, I don't think fetuses are "a life".  Its a 0% death of a full human vs a virus is 1%.  I was trying to explain from your point of view. 

Also everyone plays "god" including you.  Except you are decided to save the fetuses physical life and potentially ruining others, you are putting your own beliefs and will upon others....which by your definition is playing "god".   You are telling someone else how to live their life and decide their future for them.  When their decisions wont effect you.  Unlike covid all the abortions in the world don't threaten anyone elses life or freedom.  That's pretty commie and not American.

Lastly its not all about financial but emotional.  A 16yr old is not ready to be a parent.  Many people are unfit to have children regardless of wealth.  They might have mental disorders, genetic disorders and other issues.  To say they must never have sex or never make a mistake is cruel. 

.

.

This is what happens when children who should have been aborted, then raised by parents unprepared for parenthood, becomes a legal adult.  They become know-it-alls.

Projecting his own life story on others is "the norm," because he has no frame of reference in his limited experience as a 20-something. 

I bet he wishes he'd been aborted. 

I bet his parents do, too.

Life only has value if he decides it does.

Sad -- and dangerous.

I thought you were done with him.

Flapp-of-Many Names
Is there no line you will not cross just to be a Dick ?

SnowFlapp
TRIGGERED ! 

Ah heck.
Snowflapp’s in his safe space and can’t see this post anyway.

Murder is unlawful because of societal reasons. It's not technically wrong.  We sanction it in the death penalty.  We kill others in self defense. We kill our enemies in war.   But society judges that to be fine.   Religious people used to kill others in the name of religion.
 America is a society that embraces freedom and it should include the freedom over your own body and the right to abort.  In the end society and the majority decide what is right and wrong.   

I would argue the same is true for abortion.  Except we can't prove its sentient.  So it had even less societal or "moral" impacts.  The minority want to ban it.   Society wants to do it.   Thus it should be allowed.  Especially with America's society and its constitution. 

If we can't agree on the science,  cause clearly that is going to go no where.  We agree that religion is not involved. Then maybe we can agree on this.

You made the argument that for abortion to be outlawed that we must first prove it is wrong. We can never prove it is wrong just like we can never prove murder is wrong.

So we can resort to other ways to justify it
Democracy - It's wrong if enough of us say it is. (opens up a can of worms)
God - It is wrong because god says it is wrong. This allows for things that are normally opinions to become more in the realm of fact. Objective morals I call them but there are many names for this concept. Of course then we have to debate (we will never all agree) religion. 
Science - People try to use science to make arguments for right and wrong but they really never work, science can only ever really say whether something like this is beneficial or not given a certain definition of beneficial.
Just because it's wrong - The default justification based on someone's beliefs they can't really articulate