Graphic Abortion Ad to Air During Superbowl.
Replies
-
The logic you are suggesting, it seems to me, would lead to the conclusion that we can’t eat anything that lives (since it is “possible” that all other plants and animals “might” evolve towards intelligence). Concerning “pre-human” ancestors, this is highly hypothetical. To my mind, if a being has intellect and will (making possible the search for truth and goodness), it is endowed with the “image of God” or likeness to God (meaning by that having the potential to know and love God ) and therefore should be treated as an “end” and not a “means.” At what point that might have happened in evolutionary history is anyone’s guess. I don’t think the current evidence is sufficient to form a certain judgment.
I'm not saying we can't eat anything that lives. I'm arguing that pro-life is a hypocritical position. You said you agree with evolution but you use the term "pre-human". What do you mean by that? If the evidence is not sufficient to form a judgment regarding what point we became capable of knowing god, then why is the evidence sufficient to decide what is acceptable murder (animals), and what is not? (fetuses).0 -
I have no reason to think a human “fetus” is not a human organism. If you let it grow, I have no doubt that it will grow into being a rational human being (unless something damages it or if it is “defective”; my point is that it is a rational-sort of being). No new “information” is needed to make the living organism we call a human “fetus” a being like you or me. Concerning “pre-humans,” my point was that our only knowledge of such creatures is a few fragments of bones. Our speculations about what they were capable of doing or thinking is highly debatable. Not so with plants and lower animals (by “lower” I mean those who lack the power of rational thought and free, moral acts). This evidence is “sufficient” because we can examine and observe those animals while we cannot observe “pre-humans.” I don’t understand why you are accusing me of being hypocritical. I have already stated that if you can supply evidence that a particular animal (or plant, for that matter) has the powers of rational thought and freedom (thereby indicating a power to know and love God) then that being should be given the “right to life.” Unborn humans obviously have that power and the proof of it is found in letting them grow up and use that power. We see that happening, at various stages, all the time. Not so with the other plants and animals. Furthermore, I can easily accuse you of hypocrisy, I suppose, for excluding plants. I can use the same logic you are using for animals for eating plants. I guess the question I’m wondering about is: What do you think is the reason or moral foundation for not killing and eating a chicken, fish or cow? I told you mine: beings made for a transcendent purpose or destiny (knowing and loving God in this case) have a value that exceeds a purely temporary one and therefore should not be treated as merely objects for temporary, present use. What is your basis for extending the right to life to a living being? Why “should” people follow your principle or basis for “rights” to life? I’m also finding it rather difficult to understand why I should consider not eating a chicken but I should consider destroying humans in the early and most vulnerable stages of their development. To my mind, it is pure linguistic sophistry to deny “humanity” to humans before they are born or when they are still developing.I'm not saying we can't eat anything that lives. I'm arguing that pro-life is a hypocritical position. You said you agree with evolution but you use the term "pre-human". What do you mean by that? If the evidence is not sufficient to form a judgment regarding what point we became capable of knowing god, then why is the evidence sufficient to decide what is acceptable murder (animals), and what is not? (fetuses).0 -
Again, what's a pre-human?
You can't call me hypocritical for not including plants. I'm an equal opportunity murderer. I eat meat, plants, and chicken fetuses all the time. I merely use the position of animal murder to point out the hypocrisy of the pro-life, meat eater. Basically our debate has boiled down to the equality of life, animal/plant vs human. Personally I'm not so vain to think that humans are any more special than the rest of the creatures on earth. We are all here thanks to the big bang and evolution, (which we both agree on). I guess whether we have the right to life or not should depend on how far we've evolved? And it seems from the pro life, meat eating view, that once we evolve far enough we get to decide the fate of the creatures that haven't evolved as far as we have yet. Oh, the vanity of humanity.0 -
So, you'll eat a people burger?You can't call me hypocritical for not including plants. I'm an equal opportunity murderer. I eat meat, plants, and chicken fetuses all the time.. Personally I'm not so vain to think that humans are any more special than the rest of the creatures on earth.0 -
So, you'll eat a people burger?You can't call me hypocritical for not including plants. I'm an equal opportunity murderer. I eat meat, plants, and chicken fetuses all the time.. Personally I'm not so vain to think that humans are any more special than the rest of the creatures on earth.
Where do you think they got that lovely hufu flavor from? :laugh: just kidding. I've ever eaten hofu. Or people burgers.
Or have I?0 -
So, you'll eat a people burger?You can't call me hypocritical for not including plants. I'm an equal opportunity murderer. I eat meat, plants, and chicken fetuses all the time.. Personally I'm not so vain to think that humans are any more special than the rest of the creatures on earth.
Where do you think they got that lovely hufu flavor from? :laugh: just kidding. I've ever eaten hofu. Or people burgers.
Or have I?
That reminds me of these weight watchers cards I have seen online from the 70's.
http://www.candyboots.com/wwcards/caucasianshash.html
http://www.candyboots.com/wwcards.html0 -
No. I also wouldn't eat a cat burger. Of course, cats are superior to humans. Just ask one. They'll look at you with disdain because you are too far beneath them to even bother with an answer.
So, you'll eat a people burger?You can't call me hypocritical for not including plants. I'm an equal opportunity murderer. I eat meat, plants, and chicken fetuses all the time.. Personally I'm not so vain to think that humans are any more special than the rest of the creatures on earth.0 -
So, you'll eat a people burger?You can't call me hypocritical for not including plants. I'm an equal opportunity murderer. I eat meat, plants, and chicken fetuses all the time.. Personally I'm not so vain to think that humans are any more special than the rest of the creatures on earth.
Nice try. I eat animals and plants because that is the food chain, survival of the fittest, and I don't deny it. Animals (in most cases) do not eat their own either.
You still haven't told me what a pre-human is.
Do you consider women who have abortions to be murderers?0 -
So, you'll eat a people burger?You can't call me hypocritical for not including plants. I'm an equal opportunity murderer. I eat meat, plants, and chicken fetuses all the time.. Personally I'm not so vain to think that humans are any more special than the rest of the creatures on earth.
Where do you think they got that lovely hufu flavor from? :laugh: just kidding. I've ever eaten hofu. Or people burgers.
Or have I?
That reminds me of these weight watchers cards I have seen online from the 70's.
http://www.candyboots.com/wwcards/caucasianshash.html
http://www.candyboots.com/wwcards.html
LMFAO!!! Peach Melba was my favorite: http://www.candyboots.com/wwcards/peachmelba.html
I'm giving this to my friend, who is signing back up for WW.0 -
So, you'll eat a people burger?You can't call me hypocritical for not including plants. I'm an equal opportunity murderer. I eat meat, plants, and chicken fetuses all the time.. Personally I'm not so vain to think that humans are any more special than the rest of the creatures on earth.
Nice try. I eat animals and plants because that is the food chain, survival of the fittest, and I don't deny it. Animals (in most cases) do not eat their own either.
You still haven't told me what a pre-human is.
Do you consider women who have abortions to be murderers?
*kitten*?0 -
In some cases animals do eat their own kind (e.g., cats). Why should what animals do determine what we do, anyway? "Pre-human" is the term used to refer to theoretical ancestors of humans that are (a) necessary on the assumption of an evolutionary origin of human beings and (b) seem to be supported by limited fossil evidence. How similar these beings were to human beings and what level (if any) of intellect and moral freedom they possessed is a matter of pure conjecture. Because this discussion is so highly speculative, it is not very fruitful for our discussion. All I'm saying is that given the assumption there were human-like beings that preceded the arrival of "homo sapiens" ("man the wise"), in order to consider our moral duties towards such beings we would have to know their capacity for transcendent knowledge, desire and experience.Nice try. I eat animals and plants because that is the food chain, survival of the fittest, and I don't deny it. Animals (in most cases) do not eat their own either.
You still haven't told me what a pre-human is.
Do you consider women who have abortions to be murderers?
Concerning my position on women who have abortions and murder, objectively speaking they are destroying the lives of innocent human beings. This is objectively wrong. "Murder," from a moral standpoint, presupposes a certain level of moral knowledge and decision. A person who runs over an object on the road because he thinks it is a carpet but it turns out to be a human being is not guilty of "murder" since there was no intention to kill a human being. A person who kills anothing human in an act of self-defense is not guilty of "murder." Murder is the deliberate, knowing destruction of innocent human life. If a woman kills the child in her womb, knowing its moral status as a human being, she is guilty of murder. My suspicion, however, is that most women who have abortions are convinced that they are destroying a non-human (however this is described or defended). I do not think it is helpful to characterize these acts as "murder." I do think they are sad, regretful, unfortunate acts. I do believe they are morally wrong. I think that murder, however, requires a level of knowledge and intentional acting that is not typically present when a woman has an abortion.0 -
Niko, I hope I addressed your questions and points. I'm going to politely bow out now. I've spent too much time on here debating the existence of God, abortion, right to life issues, evolution, etc. I'm sure most reading are tired of my comments since they're all based on the same point, which is my belief in God.
Back to the OP~ my hope is that IF this ad airs, it will not be so graphic.0 -
Niko, I hope I addressed your questions and points. I'm going to politely bow out now. I've spent too much time on here debating the existence of God, abortion, right to life issues, evolution, etc. I'm sure most reading are tired of my comments since they're all based on the same point, which is my belief in God.
Back to the OP~ my hope is that IF this ad airs, it will not be so graphic.
Fair enough. Cheers,
n
0 -
A.When the Superbowl is over, is there any way to delete this whole thread?
I depends on the age of the thread. If it has matured sufficiently, I say we keep it. If not, I think the OP has the right to abort it.
This was hilarious.
B.So, you'll eat a people burger?
All people eating goes on in the atheist forum. To be more specific baby eating only. We do have an image to uphold after all.0
This discussion has been closed.