It is hypocritical to use religion and the Bible to justify opposition to abortion.

[Kenny]

8 year olds don’t have expertise in biology… Doogie Howser isn’t real

Yes, they haven't yet been indoctrinated. Innocence has a way of speaking truth.

I remember when I was sharing with elementary students how I had though at one time in my life that I would be a success in the business world whether it cost me my wife and children or not.

A little girl pipped up and said, "That is stupid!" - Children say the darnest things. I couldn't argue with the truth.

 

[Sheldon]

This statement is true to form. You evade everything by mantras that I have come to be accustomed to. It says so much about the weakness of your position

I have evaded nothing, just asked a question, though given your serial evasion on here it's pretty funny to watch you resort to this tactic, because you know you made a claim you can't offer any cogent defence of.

 

[Sheldon]

Ok... so it should have read YOUR human reasoning

More evasion, and a sly ad hominem fallacy, true to form, and since you can't offer anything cogent how do you know it is beyond anyone else's reasoning? To remind ourselves, this was your claim:

KenS said: ↑
Why should I be ashamed of holding a higher moral sense and standard than what is offered by human reasoning?

So you can't explain it then, doesn't it worry you that your claims to moral ascendancy can't be supported by any cogent defence of the claim?

If morality exists beyond human reasoning, then what exactly are you using to determine it is moral beyond bare assertion? Apparently nothing is the answer. Try another ad hominem fallacy, or another straw man fallacy, you seem to think these are an effective distraction.

 

[Sheldon]

Yes, they haven't yet been indoctrinated. Innocence has a way of speaking truth.

So the scientific field of biology is indoctrination now? I see the dictionary is having a pasting again. Tell us again about weak arguments.

indoctrination
noun

1. the process of teaching a person or group to accept a set of beliefs uncritically.

Hope this helps you understand why that claim was such a weak and inaccurate one. Science does not accept anything uncritically. That is not how the methods work, and one would have to be scientifically illiterate or themselves indoctrinated against science to argue otherwise.

 

[Sheldon]

I remember when I was sharing with elementary students how I had though at one time in my life that I would be a success in the business world whether it cost me my wife and children or not.

A little girl pipped up and said, "That is stupid!" - Children say the darnest things. I couldn't argue with the truth.

Outwitted by a little girl, given the posts on here this isn't coming as much of a surprise, and the comment was demonstrably appalling, to anyone, regardless of age.

This anecdote is a poor defence of your claim, which itself was a very poor argument. A baby is very different from a zygote or blastocyst and from a developing foetus, and the reasons have been explained. The former is a separate sentient human being, whereas the latter is not, it is topologically connected to the woman whose body it is a part of, and uses her immune system, her metabolism and her blood for oxygen and nutrients. It also cannot survive without using her body, and if and when it can survive without using her body it is no longer a developing foetus.

The vast majority of abortions involve a blastocyst, which is just a clump of insentient cells. I doubt anyone here arguing for women's right to bodily autonomy, would argue that it wouldn't be better to avoid wherever possible late term abortions, by ensuring all women have free access to a termination as early as possible.

 

[Kenny]

More evasion, and a sly ad hominem fallacy, true to form, and since you can't offer anything cogent how do you know it is beyond anyone else's reasoning? To remind ourselves, this was your claim:



So you can't explain it then, doesn't it worry you that your claims to moral ascendancy can't be supported by any cogent defence of the claim?

If morality exists beyond human reasoning, then what exactly are you using to determine it is moral beyond bare assertion? Apparently nothing is the answer. Try another ad hominem fallacy, or another straw man fallacy, you seem to think these are an effective distraction.

A common tactic is to flood a thread with posts as if that was an argument.

The common tactic also used is simply say "evasion and fallacies" as the answer.

Another common tactic is asking irrelevant questions creating other irrelevant sub-threads.

and...

You still don't have cogent and logical answer to my point.

 

[Sheldon]

You still don't have cogent and logical answer to my point.

On the contrary I have answered every point you have addressed to me. It's you who has refused to explain your claim, as of course you always do, and as others have noted:

KenS said: ↑
Why should I be ashamed of holding a higher moral sense and standard than what is offered by human reasoning?

If morality exists beyond human reasoning, then what exactly are you using to determine it is moral beyond bare assertion?

 

[Kenny]

On the contrary I have answered every point you have addressed to me. It's you who has refused to explain your claim, as of course you always do, and as others have noted:

If morality exists beyond human reasoning, then what exactly are you using to determine it is moral beyond bare assertion?

you are going in circles.

But I understand your hesitancy to address topic.

 

[Sheldon]

you are going in circles.

But I understand your hesitancy to address topic.

On the contrary I have addressed the topic, and will do so again. You have not addressed your claim though:

KenS said: ↑
Why should I be ashamed of holding a higher moral sense and standard than what is offered by human reasoning?

If morality exists beyond human reasoning, then what exactly are you using to determine it is moral beyond bare assertion?

If you think pretending my question is an avoidance of the topic, you're fooling no one. Aren't you supposed to be a pastor? Surely you have some cogent answer beyond bare assertion, or perhaps not then.

 

[Kenny]

On the contrary I have addressed the topic, and will do so again. You have not addressed your claim though:

No you haven't. Maybe in your imagination... so... if it is in the womb at 20oz, it is not a person but when taken out "SHAZZAM, PEANUT BUTTER AND JELLY, ABRA CADABRA" it's a person?

 

[Wildswanderer]

I can't believe a woman can't abort because her neighbor says so.

I can't believe a woman can't kill her newborn baby just because her neighbor says she can't.

 

[Sheldon]

KenS said: ↑
Why should I be ashamed of holding a higher moral sense and standard than what is offered by human reasoning?

If morality exists beyond human reasoning, then what exactly are you using to determine it is moral beyond bare assertion?

 

[sojourner]

I can't believe a woman can't kill her newborn baby just because her neighbor says she can't.

This obfuscates the point. Fetuses aren’t “newborn babies.”

 

[Wildswanderer]

This obfuscates the point. Fetuses aren’t “newborn babies.”

They actually are if born premature. He's always a baby.

 

[syo]

I can't believe a woman can't kill her newborn baby just because her neighbor says she can't.

Are you serious?

 

[Sheldon]

They actually are if born premature. He's always a baby.

So a foetus is no longer a foetus if it is born, that's not exactly news. You just defeated your own argument.

 

[Wildswanderer]

So a foetus is no longer a foetus if it is born, that's not exactly news. You just defeated your own argument.

What part of " always a baby" is too hard for you to understand?

 

[Wildswanderer]

Are you serious?

Same logic.

 

[Sheldon]

What part of " always a baby" is too hard for you to understand?

The fact it is ludicrously false.

 

[sojourner]

They actually are if born premature. He's always a baby.

Then they’re no longer a fetus. I don’t know that retroactive abortion is legal anywhere.