Abortion S.L.E.D.

Abortion S.L.E.D.

by A Person | Published on February 1st, 2008, 1:35 pm | Religion

BecauseHeLives wrote: Do you believe that because a person doesn't have a functioning part in the their body that they are LESS of a person.

Yes - if the part of their body is the brain - that is the gist of what I've been saying and where I feel the SLED argument fails.

If a person does not have a functional brain then they are less of a person. Even mild absence of function will result in the loss of significant human rights. Complete absence and the inability to live independently results in the loss of the right to live. Hence removing brain dead people from life support is not murder.

Jan 29, 2008:

A Person wrote:Nah, just that actual abstinence is extraordinarily hard to achieve. The sexual drive is way too strong.

All it takes is a little Jesus.

That's my view too. However I think the BHL would like to force his decisions on everyone.

I don't think so. :\

Questioner wrote:Yet another stupid argument. Of course I'm right. And the U.S. unintended pregnancy rate proves it. Should we also not teach the kids about the dangers and symptoms of venereal diseases because we don't want them to have sex before marriage?

I taught my kids abstinence, contraception, AND how to recognize symptoms of venereal disease if they ever needed to know that information. Both of my kids have chosen abstinence because the know the FACTS of sex, contraceptives and contraceptive failure and VD. And they have a lot of love and support at home so they haven't needed to seek it in premature sexual relationships.

Why can't you fundies follow the path of Jesus Christ and love people instead of forever seeking ways to hurt them and make their lives even harder?

I understand what kind of person you are. You refuse to be wrong, even when you are.

Many people will try to carry out a false sense of intimacy throughout their lives, being constantly sexual activte because they have no where to turn to for love. I'm glad you taught you're children abstinence. But to tell them, "Don't have sex! But if you do, make sure you're protected...." isn't right to me. Its like saying, "Don't steal from the liquor store, but if you do, use the back alley to get out...".

I don't try and hurt people. But I like how you constantly jump to conclusions.

A Person wrote:Yes - if the part of their body is the brain - that is the gist of what I've been saying and where I feel the SLED argument fails.

If a person does not have a functional brain then they are less of a person. Even mild absence of function will result in the loss of significant human rights. Complete absence and the inability to live independently results in the loss of the right to live. Hence removing brain dead people from life support is not murder.

What?

I have a mentally challenged friend I visit every week. He can't feed himself, can't walk, can't control his bladder. But he's probably one of the most intelligent person I know, and he says maybe one or two words the whole time. Does that mean he doesn't have the right to live?

How can you say that another human being is less than a person than you? What makes you so special?

Just because you're slow, or don't react as quickly as someone else doesn't make you any less human. A soul is a soul, no matter what condition the vessel is in.
I'm angry.

IgnoranceIsBliss wrote:But he's probably one of the most intelligent person I know, and he says maybe one or two words the whole time. Does that mean he doesn't have the right to live?

You answered your own question. He has a functioning brain and has cognitive and communicative powers. Loss of cognitive function can result in loss of the right to self determination, suffrage and freedom of movement. If the brain loses all function then the 'person' is legally brain dead, loses the right to life and can be removed from life support without it being murder.

A Person wrote:You answered your own question. He has a functioning brain and has cognitive and communicative powers. Loss of cognitive function can result in loss of the right to self determination, suffrage and freedom of movement. If the brain loses all function then the 'person' is legally brain dead, loses the right to life and can be removed from life support without it being murder.

If a person does not have a functional brain then they are less of a person. Even mild absence of function will result in the loss of significant human rights.

No, he can barely talk. Its just the things he says. I can tell him all my frustrations, everything that bothers me, and hes able to say one word that makes it all better.

IgnoranceIsBliss wrote:But to tell them, "Don't have sex! But if you do, make sure you're protected...." isn't right to me. Its like saying, "Don't steal from the liquor store, but if you do, use the back alley to get out...".

I don't try and hurt people. But I like how you constantly jump to conclusions.

When you become a parent you''ll find that telling your kids 'Don't' works for a while but when they become teens it becomes a lot less effective. It works much better if you say "These are the consequences" and give them factual information.

A better example would be "Getting drunk leads to these problems. But you need to know that if you do ever get drunk or find yourself in an unsafe situation, you can call me at any time and trust that I will come to you and get you home safely - without discussion until it can happen in a calm and caring manner."

IgnoranceIsBliss wrote:
A Person wrote:You answered your own question. He has a functioning brain and has cognitive and communicative powers. Loss of cognitive function can result in loss of the right to self determination, suffrage and freedom of movement. If the brain loses all function then the 'person' is legally brain dead, loses the right to life and can be removed from life support without it being murder.

No, he can barely talk. Its just the things he says. I can tell him all my frustrations, everything that bothers me, and hes able to say one word that makes it all better.

So as you say he has a functioning brain and can communicate. So he's not brain dead. If he were in a coma and unable to move, but exhibited brain activity he would not be brain dead.

I think your misunderstanding what what I mean by 'less of a person'. I simply mean entitled to fewer rights. Children are 'less of a person' in that they are denied all sorts of rights that adults have and their freedoms are constrained. They can't vote, live independently, have sex etc.

A Person wrote:I think your misunderstanding what what I mean by 'less of a person'. I simply mean entitled to fewer rights. Children are 'less of a person' in that they are denied all sorts of rights that adults have and their freedoms are constrained. They can't vote, live independently, have sex etc.

And that brings us back on topic.

IgnoranceIsBliss wrote:
A Person wrote:I think your misunderstanding what what I mean by 'less of a person'. I simply mean entitled to fewer rights. Children are 'less of a person' in that they are denied all sorts of rights that adults have and their freedoms are constrained. They can't vote, live independently, have sex etc.

And that brings us back on topic.

AP... what is your definition of an inate human right?

I think you are starting to blend different "rights".

BecauseHeLives wrote:AP... what is your definition of an inate human right?

I think you are starting to blend different "rights".

Universal Declaration of Human Rights wrote:Article 1
All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.
...
Article 3
Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.

Note some conditions: Born free, endowed with reason and conscience.

The 'Right to life' presupposes life. i.e being born and being endowed with reason and conscience. The 'right to life' does not confer the 'ability to live'.

This is stupid....You're being hard-headed.

Thank you.

Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary - Hard-headed \Hard"-head`ed\, a. Having sound judgment; sagacious; shrewd.

A Person wrote:
BecauseHeLives wrote:AP... what is your definition of an inate human right?

I think you are starting to blend different "rights".

Universal Declaration of Human Rights wrote:Article 1
All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.
...
Article 3
Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.

Note some conditions: Born free, endowed with reason and conscience.

The 'Right to life' presupposes life. i.e being born and being endowed with reason and conscience. The 'right to life' does not confer the 'ability to live'.

By your own given definition a baby has no rights until it comes out of the womb (Born). Is that how you feel?

No, my opinion is that it can be extended futher back to when the fetus has the beginnings of life - a functioning (if not reasoning) brain and the wherewithal for life - viability.

A Person wrote:Thank you.

Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary - Hard-headed \Hard"-head`ed\, a. Having sound judgment; sagacious; shrewd.

Right. You know what it really means. I know its hard, but please try to be a little more mature.

IgnoranceIsBliss wrote:
A Person wrote:Thank you.

Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary - Hard-headed \Hard"-head`ed\, a. Having sound judgment; sagacious; shrewd.

Right. You know what it really means. I know its hard, but please try to be a little more mature.

You mean
Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1)
hard·head·ed –adjective 1. not easily moved or deceived; practical; shrewd.
or
Compact Oxford English Dictionary of Current English
hard-headed: adjective tough and realistic.

: Humptydumpty.jpg (13.93 KiB) Viewed 120 times

No. I mean:
Webster's Online Dictionary-
Hardheaded
Adjective

1. Unreasonably rigid in the face of argument or entreaty or attack.

Rigid- incapable of compromise or flexibility.

That's strange, when I go to Webster's Online Dictionary

I find
HARD-HEADED
Adjective
1. Having sound judgment; sagacious; shrewd.

But thanks for clarifying what you meant. I should have guessed you didn't mean it to be a compliment

Thats very strange, because when I go to there, I get this:

Hardheaded

Definitions: Hardheaded
Hardheaded
Adjective

1. Unreasonably rigid in the face of argument or entreaty or attack.

2. Guided by practical experience and observation rather than theory; "a hardheaded appraisal of our position"; "a hard-nosed labor leader"; "completely practical in his approach to business"; "not ideology but pragmatic politics".

http://www.websters-online-dictionary.o ... hardheaded

That is strange. The definition for hard-headed (the words you used) is
1. Having sound judgment; sagacious; shrewd.
but for hardheaded (no hyphen) it's
1. Unreasonably rigid in the face of argument or entreaty or attack.
2. Guided by practical experience and observation rather than theory; "a hardheaded appraisal of our position"; "a hard-nosed labor leader"; "completely practical in his approach to business"; "not ideology but pragmatic politics".

I don't see where I'm being 'unreasonably rigid'. You may not like my reasons but they are stated. I think forcing others to conform to your views would be a good definition of 'unreasonably rigid'. I'm glad to hear you repudiate that.

Well, no one asked you to think. February 2nd, 2008, 11:51 pm Reply with quote

Well, no one asked you to think.

IgnoranceIsBliss wrote:Well, no one asked you to think.

It's what makes me human

IgnoranceIsBliss wrote:It's what makes me human

If thats what human is, thats what I don't want to be.

Don't worry, you don't do a lot of it.