Another Christian Being Offered On The PC Alter?

[seer]

I would personally argue that Singer's utilitarianism is wrong because utilitarianism has some hard ethical boundaries. But I'm not going to pretend I could beat Singer in a debate over the matter, either.

And while you argue unborn babies die, and in the near future just born babies:http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...-The-Baby-Live

[Sam]

Who came up with the idea of 'personhood' and how does 'personhood' define your right to be able to live? If we want to justify killing off a group of people, could we first start with the idea that they are not really 'persons' and therefore killing them off really isn't any different than killing a pesky bug? You might say this is nonsense, but no it isn't and it has been tried over and over again across the centuries. Did the Nazi's consider the Jews 'persons'? Did the Turks consider the Armenian's persons? Did the Hutu consider the Tutsi (Rwanda Genocide) persons? See the problem that we are running into here yet? All you need to do is declare groups of people, you don't like, as being 'non persons' and the justification of murdering them begins.

As for your question, it kind of does a rather good way of refuting your claims. If the choice wasn't tough, than who cares if the 6 month old is left to drown? Unless of course, the personhood argument is just a farce that is commonly used to justify killing off the unborn though. Do both lives matter or not?

There was maybe one sentence in that that kept to the argument's framework and didn't spin off into completely unrelated tangents. Gotta be able to collect your thoughts and narrow your focus so that you're addressing someone's post and not strawmen.

If you're going to keep trying to bash someone over this issue, develop and explain the ethical framework. That starts by explaining what we mean by "person" and what criteria a "person" has. Work up from there.

[lilpixieofterror]

You seem to be suggesting that those of us on here who oppose infanticide haven't given the issue serious thought.

I kind of figured that most of the liberals around here would have disagreed with Starlight's position on infanticide. Now I'm not so sure, and that disturbs me.

That is because you have a moral fiber. The idea that there is sort of magical number that bestows rights to live is rather revolting and disturbing and reminds me of histories great genocides of the past. Those people were marginalized, by the majority and the government, and later rounded up and executed while people did nothing to stop it. Abortion and infanticide, in reality, is no different. In fact, I'd make every attempt to save both and if I couldn't, I'd go for the one that would have the greatest chances of survival because I have a value of the lives of babies as well as children. My kid was not disposable at 6 months old and she wouldn't be at any age. Anything less, is morally reprehensible and should be condemned for what it truly is.

[lilpixieofterror]

There was maybe one sentence in that that kept to the argument's framework and didn't spin off into completely unrelated tangents. Gotta be able to collect your thoughts and narrow your focus so that you're addressing someone's post and not strawmen.

If you're going to keep trying to bash someone over this issue, develop and explain the ethical framework. That starts by explaining what we mean by "person" and what criteria a "person" has. Work up from there.

Sorry sweety, but my framework is perfectly justified and you're just trying to justify your morally reprehensible views. Is it true or false that the greatest genocides, on the past century, were done by groups of people dehumanizing their targets? The Nazi's didn't consider the Jews nor Slavs people either nor did the Turks consider the Armenian people's persons either. In fact, I seriously doubt that the Hutu thought of the Tutsi as persons either. Sorry that your argument leads to such moral depravity and you're incapable of seeing the reality staring you down. Your 'personhood' argument is the same argument that has been used to justify the worst events, in human history. Keep digging because I'm sure not quite enough people are convinced yet that you see the lives of children, as disposable and more proof that you nor Starlight should ever be allowed around children.

[Sam]

Sorry sweety, but my framework is perfectly justified and you're just trying to justify your morally reprehensible views. Is it true or false that the greatest genocides, on the past century, were done by groups of people dehumanizing their targets? The Nazi's didn't consider the Jews nor Slavs people either nor did the Turks consider the Armenian people's persons either. In fact, I seriously doubt that the Hutu thought of the Tutsi as persons either. Sorry that your argument leads to such moral depravity and you're incapable of seeing the reality staring you down. Your 'personhood' argument is the same argument that has been used to justify the worst events, in human history. Keep digging because I'm sure not quite enough people are convinced yet that you see the lives of children, as disposable and more proof that you nor Starlight should ever be allowed around children.

Crystal, quite honestly, you just don't know what you're talking about. And your exceptional lack of charity in all things on this board is simply shameful. At least learn how to comprehend the scope and function of someone's argument before you launch into a righteous hissy fit.

[lilpixieofterror]

Crystal, quite honestly, you just don't know what you're talking about. And your exceptional lack of charity in all things on this board is simply shameful. At least learn how to comprehend the scope and function of someone's argument before you launch into a righteous hissy fit.

Of course I don't because your views are morally reprehensible and you're trying to justify killing children and I will have none of that and you're angry that I don't play your little games with you. Did the Nazi's value the lives of Jews and see them as persons or not? I know what the answer is and it is that they didn't see them nor many groups of humans as 'persons' worthy or life and thus treated them as such. You're attempt to use the same sort of logic and you can't admit that your views are no different than the views of countless genocidal manics, throughout history, is revealing and rather telling. The first step, to justify mass murder, is to dehumanize your targets. They are not real persons, they are not as good as we are, etc. All made up excuses to justify gather them up and/or killing them to easy the guilt of the executors. You deny this and don't want to answer because you're not stupid and know you can't refute the compressions because they really exist. Finally, what 'religious hissy fit'? I said not a word about God nor religion anywhere. I just drew up what you are really doing and compared it to the history of other groups, doing the same thing. What do you know, they line up perfectly. If killing Jews, Slavs, Armenians, or Tutsi is wrong; why is killing the unborn different? Funny, I thought the lives of all should matter and it shouldn't matter who they are or what their ages are. Silly me for thinking you had a moral fiber in you. I will not make the same mistake again.

[Christianbookworm]

I would think murdering children/infants/unborn would be a great way to get in trouble with Jesus. He would not like that being done to the little ones that belong to Him.

[The Thinker]

You're begging the question as to what 'unnecessary suffering' is and isn't.

Unnecessary: not necessary or essential; needless; unessential.

[lilpixieofterror]

I would say with certainty that most of those who oppose infanticide haven't given Singer et al.'s argument serious weight.

It is pretty simple for even you to figure out Sam. The lives of all people matter and it shouldn't matter who they are or how old they are. All should have the basic right of life. See Sam, I know disabled people and who they are and I even married one. I've seen babies who are so little, that they literately fit in your hand. Their lives are as important as any 'healthy' babies life is or the life of anybody else. Singer is trying to preach morally reprehensible nonsense that should be exposed for the evil it truly is. Don't get mad at me because I actually think all lives matter and lives are not something to be callously thrown into the trash.

[lilpixieofterror]

Unnecessary: not necessary or essential; needless; unessential.

And you have the capacity to determine what is necessary and not how? Did you become omniscient, while nobody was looking?

[Christianbookworm]

Unnecessary: not necessary or essential; needless; unessential.

And only an Omniscient Being would know if a particular bit of suffering was unneeded. Any suffering can be used for something better, Character development for instance. Things could be much worse.

[The Thinker]

Silly human. The third option is that morality is based on God's nature. You are just a troll and my entertainment.

Haha. I already addressed that, but in case you didn't read:

The standard response to the euthyphro dilemma that god isis god good because he has these properties or are these properties good because god has them? In order to avoid compromising god's sovereignty and admitting that these properties are good independently of god, the theist who wants to hold to the moral argument must say that these traits are good because god has them. But how is love, compassion, fairness or any other positive attribute good only because god has them? They would be good irrespective of god's existence, as would be evident by their effects. The theist would bear the burden of proof to demonstrate that they wouldn't be good without god, which I haven't yet seen anyone successfully achieve. Thus I say objective moral values exist independently of god.

There is no third option.

[The Thinker]

Hey genius, no one said that some laws, even divine laws, could not be relative (Christian are not required to keep the Sabbath). But that they are objective and authoritative. I'm still waiting for a rational explanation concerning your "objective" moral ideal.

How are they objective and authoritative?

[lilpixieofterror]

Haha. I already addressed that, but in case you didn't read:

The standard response to the euthyphro dilemma that god isis god good because he has these properties or are these properties good because god has them? In order to avoid compromising god's sovereignty and admitting that these properties are good independently of god, the theist who wants to hold to the moral argument must say that these traits are good because god has them. But how is love, compassion, fairness or any other positive attribute good only because god has them? They would be good irrespective of god's existence, as would be evident by their effects. The theist would bear the burden of proof to demonstrate that they wouldn't be good without god, which I haven't yet seen anyone successfully achieve. Thus I say objective moral values exist independently of god.

There is no third option.

Kindergarten theology called, they want their argument back. Considering that Christian views is that many things, flow from the nature of God, you can't separate them out from the nature of God. It would be like trying to separate cells from life.

[The Thinker]

He's a fundy atheist, nothing will get through that thick skull of his.

You guys are fundy Christians. In fact, the term was invented to describe you.