HOME | DD
PieWriter β How To Be A Good Pro-Life Advocate
Published: 2012-12-31 19:12:29 +0000 UTC; Views: 2894; Favourites: 28; Downloads: 0
Redirect to original
Description
Here, I want to go over what I believe should be the proper etiquette and workings of Pro-Life (mainly concerning abortion); this has all been learned and collected by me from both experience and from seeing level-headed Pro-Life people act and react to Pro-Choice. I encourage my fellow Pro-Life supporters to follow this example, or to correct me if you believe I am wrong on a certain point.Now please read on, and I pray you get something out of it!
If you are Pro-Life, this is how you're supposed to act:
~With respect. The point of choosing to be Pro-Life is the desire to respect ALL life. Whether it's for religious reasons or not, the desire to respect life is important and at the core of our philosophy. Even if you don't like it, this includes showing respect to people who support Pro-Choice. Calling them "anti-life" and baby murderers" is not only hateful and not a true Pro-Life attitude, but it steers people away from our viewpoint. The theme of respect branches out to other proper actions, so I will go on to the next point.
~With selflessness. You are not Pro-Life because it benefits you; you are Pro-Life because you believe women, their unborn children, and their families deserve something better than abortion. You are not there to sneer at Pro-Choice stamps on dA, or to get a sense of pride from debating/arguing with a Pro-Choice advocate. You are there to help pregnant women choose non-violent choices, and to spread awareness of the negative effects of abortion. You are there to spread awareness of pregnancy centers, to encourage people to adopt, to maybe even adopt yourself! There is so much work you can do to show your selfless motives for choosing Pro-Life principles.
~With a desire to do charity. Being Pro-Life goes beyond throwing a bumper sticker on your car and getting into childish debates on the internet. To truly be Pro-Life, you must have a desire to help scared women who are experiencing unplanned pregnancies and their children (and perhaps even to their families, depending on the situation). Relating back to my previous point, you do this by volunteer work and advocacy. However, this can go further: you can even start a pregnancy center or Pro-Life chapter in your area if there is none, and if there is one already, think about joining. There are many scared women who do not know what to do, and they need help; why not be there first hand to help out? You can even think about working for an adoption agency and help children find loving families.
And even if you do not do volunteer work, you can always spread the word about pregnancy centers, advertise Pro-Life events, visit orphanages/foster care, etc. Sometimes even sending some money to fund these organizations can do them a lot of good.
~With virtuous intent. Sadly, some people think that advocating for Pro-Life means picketing abortion clinics and demonizing women and men who get/fund abortions. My friend, these women will not look upon us kindly if their only memory of Pro-Life was a bunch of "Bible Thumpers" screaming and yelling and telling them that they are horrible. Are they wrong? Yes. But what they need is help and proper direction, not hateful picket signs.
If you want to counteract abortion, then do so with a positive reaction. Instead of demonizing abortion clinics, advocate for pregnancy centers. Instead of giving a dirty look to the teen mom you see shopping with her little child, offer her to help her with groceries, or whatever it is. Instead of calling Pro-Choice advocates "baby-killers", write and speak politely about the misconceptions they have about Pro-Life beliefs. Remember, you are Pro-Life for virtuous reasons, reasons that go beyond your own pride and comfort: you are Pro-Life because you want to help those in most need of it. And to help, you must stop pointing fingers and acting so negatively.
Also, I am not saying people shouldn't protest at all. You can go protest a new law that hurts pregnancy centers chances of reaching out to more women, or to protest a law that would force taxpayer dollars to support abortions. I am just saying that picketing at abortion clinics is not a smart idea.
~With an open-mind Science is something I use a lot when defending the human-ness of a fetus. I have yet to see any biological text that states that a fetus is anything aside from a growing human being inside a female's uterus. There is also a lot of science to refer to when discussing abortion and the effects of it, and so on.
However, science is always changing, and we are constantly discovering new things. While I have yet to see unbiased, sufficient evidence that proves the fetus is NOT a separate human entity, and so on, I am open to seeing newer articles on the subject, and on other Pro-Life subjects as well. So long as it is politely presented to me, and I am given sources to look into, I do not mind someone saying "Actually, there's an article here that says this instead of that..." All Pro-Life supporters shouldn't be afraid to be corrected, no matter the subject matter, because we need to be knowledgeable and correct when presenting our cases to Pro-Choice advocates.
And this goes beyond science as well. A lot of abortion issues are ethical and philosophical issues as well as scientific ones. This area is a lot more tricky, as you depend more on logic to think through these points, and not everyone has it or is willing to think about it. Still, don't be afraid to learn about how Pro-Choice people think about this issue or that; it could give you a chance to learn something new that could strengthen your Pro-Life knowledge.
~With love. Above all, act in and with love. I know that not everyone who supports Pro-Life is Christian, but this is a Bible passage that I believe can apply to anyone (and please note that "charity" and "love" were very closely related back in the old days, as love was seen as an action of giving and helping). 1 Corinthians 13:4-7 :
4 Charity suffereth long, and is kind; charity envieth not; charity vaunteth not itself, is not puffed up,
5 Doth not behave itself unseemly, seeketh not her own, is not easily provoked, thinketh no evil;
6 Rejoiceth not in iniquity, but rejoiceth in the truth;
7 Beareth all things, believeth all things, hopeth all things, endureth all things.
If you go forth and give charity/love with this attitude of selflessness, patience, and humility, you will be surprised how much people will be touched. If you are open-minded and embrace the truth, you will find the right support needed for Pro-Life advocacy. If you believe, hope, and endure, you will help countless women and children, and perhaps even open people's eyes to the truth.
If you are going to be Pro-Life, then do it out of love: for love is respectful, selfless, virtuous, rejoices in truth, and is humble. With all those qualities, who can not do so much good?
Peace be with you.
Related stamps/deviations:
Pregnancy Center Awareness: [link]
7 reasons why the feotus is not a parasite: [link]
The Feotus isn't a Person?: [link]
Pro-Life and Pro-Choice Arguments: [link]
Contraception: How Free Are We?: [link]
Pro-Need Stamp: [link]
"Not a Blob of Cells" Stamps: [link] [link] [link]
Secular Pro-Life Stamps: [link] [link]
Wiccan Pro-Life Stamp: [link]
PLAGAL Stamp: [link]
Feminists for Life Stamp: [link]
Support Rape Victims Who Choose Life: [link]
If you are raging over the content presented, please turn off your computer and go for a walk. It'll do you some good.
Also, this is not the place to argue over whether abortion is right or wrong, or the affects it has on women; if you want to debate/argue about that, feel free to check out any of the links that I gave at the end.
Related content
Comments: 47
π: 1 β©: 0
It's kind of inherently bad. You'd be restricting a woman's rights to her own body
π: 1 β©: 0
there is no such thing as a selfless or loving pro-lifer, at the end of the day you want the government and your own ideologies forced upon people who have quite clearly decided what is better for their own quality of life and the potential quality of life for the unborn. Selfless loving people don't try to force their own moral ideologies on others, selfless loving people don't want to take away someones freedom and right (as an already conscious functioning human being) to life, a selfless loving person doesn't try to make a rape victim have their rapists baby, a selfless loving person doesn't disregard the physical and mental health of the pregnant person just to make them have a stupid fucking kid, a selfless loving person doesn't put a fetus above an already conscious living person who thinks, feels, and has to permanently be effected by an unwanted pregnancy or birth.
stop acting like y'all have the moral high ground, you're nothing but selfish, hateful ,abusive, controlling assholes.Β
icing on the cake, you are a nasty disgusting homophobic transphobic piece of shit too, you want all these kids to be born and put into foster care and orphanages but don't even believe a happily married gay couple or trans people can adopt and care for them. do the world a favor and shut up.Β
π: 3 β©: 0
Young girl named Lia Mills speech for stop abortion, please watch this: www.youtube.com/watch?v=UzUb6iβ¦
π: 0 β©: 1
π: 0 β©: 0
This is good advice!Β
There needs to be stuff like this for pro choice people!
π: 0 β©: 1
Thank you for providing those who believe in what is right and true with helpful strategies.
π: 0 β©: 0
If i am pro-life, of COURSE i will be hatefull! If you truly believe its killing babies, YOU CAN'T RESPECT unless you DON'T BELIEVE IN PRO-LIFE!
Lets respect murderers!
Lets respect rape!
Lets respect pedophilia!
Don't agree? CONGRATULATION! You ACTUALLY BELIEVE those are WRONG!
God i hate when people think you can respect something you truly think is wrong, if you have any form of respect for it, and yet you claim to be against it, it only means you are not honest with yourself!
π: 1 β©: 1
π: 0 β©: 0
Stop Being stupid. Because you're pretty fucking stupid and at least slightly evil.Β
π: 0 β©: 0
While I agree with the general sentiment of loving anti-lifers despite their being in the wrong, I disagree with how you believe we ought to go about it. We show contempt for those prisoners locked up for murder, the same for terrorists and criminals worldwide, but we treat those murderers who work in labs in scrubs and in houses of debate in suits in ties with the highest respect. At their core, there is no difference between them.Β
~Murderers and those who support them deserve no respect. I don't advocate violence against them, but that doesn't mean for half a second I think they are my equal, or that their views carry any manner of legitimacy.
~If we don't condemn sin people will never see it for what it is. Censure is not antithetical to love, it's the logical extreme.
~As I said, they are not deserving of our respect. They are sinners and deserve censure. If they refuse enlightenment, then they are worthy of nothing but contempt.
~Proverbs 6:16-19 DRAΒ 16Β Six things there are, which the Lord hateth, and the seventh His soul detesteth:Β Haughty eyes, a lying tongue, hands that shed innocent blood, aΒ heart that deviseth wicked plots, feet that are swift to run into mischief and aΒ deceitful witness that uttereth lies, and him that soweth discord among brethren.
π: 0 β©: 1
π: 0 β©: 1
There's something seriously wrong with anybody who needs to be bribed into not committing murder.
π: 0 β©: 1
π: 0 β©: 1
Bullshit. It can never be more human to murder the child.
π: 0 β©: 1
π: 0 β©: 1
π: 0 β©: 0
Personally I am pro choice but if more prolifers acted like this, that'd be great. At times like that being shamed only hurts both woman and if she keeps the baby, them too
π: 1 β©: 0
I'm Pro-Choice, but I quite enjoyed reading this. There are terrible people on both sides of this, and they tend to be the loudest, which is simply a shame. On the Pro-Life side you hear people say women only get an abortion because it's "convenient" for them, completely ignoring the fact that the over-whelming majority only do so after an unimaginable struggle over the decision. Then on the Pro-Choice side you've got those who say that the Pro-Life group only cares about controlling women and denying them authority over their own bodies.
Both of those are painfully untrue.
π: 1 β©: 0
I also think others such as lgbt, bikers, atheists, even Buddhists should have the right to join the movement to. It doesn't matter in my eyes of who they are, and I don't think the unborn would mind either. If we want to win this fight we have to include anyone. So thank you for the information at the bottom.
π: 0 β©: 0
I've seen a group we must all fight against. The filthy imperialist scum.
We must fighting the imperialists! We do this of by gorilla warfare! We hit imperialist in face, then is disappear before seen! We must fightink of imperialists in winter! Because to fighting of winter is to counterattackink imperialists (could use vodka to warm comrade).
DOWN WITH THE BOURGEOISIE!
π: 0 β©: 0
I agree with you about picketing abortion clinics. I never liked the idea myself.
π: 0 β©: 0
madam,
u do realize that this prolife argument practically builds on normative standards such as "everything is life".
a fetus is a developing human, yes. but just as much as a body is a dead human.
a fetus is as live as skin cells, and by the logic introduced, if you accept science, then you would understand that.
and i dont understand why you eat pigs when they can understand as much as a 3-year old child.
π: 0 β©: 2
Sir/ma'am, actually, they are not same as fetuses. The human skin cells are not a whole organism of the human being themselves, while a human fetus is. Science made it clear that skin cells are not a organ or a member of Homo sapiens.
Skin Cells
Body organs aren't all internal like the brain or the heart. There's one we wear on the outside. Skin is our largest organβadults carry some 8 pounds (3.6 kilograms) and 22 square feet (2 square meters) of it. This fleshy covering does a lot more than make us look presentable. In fact, without it, we'd literally evaporate. Read more... (via Science National Geographic )
So, it's nowhere that mentions skin cells are a member of human organism. Your skin cells are owned only you, while a human fetus' skin cells are his or her own. You'd better to check on the human development:
- 4th week fetus
- 6th week fetus.
- 8th week fetus.
- Sources
All of those are clearly human beings who are formed by two human parents. Because a fetus is developing when his or her own body's function begins to run on-- that is not as same as skin cells, diseases, parasitic bugs, cigars, medical pills, gametes, or whatever you 'compare something' non-organisms or non-living things with a fetus. You were fetus once, so you didn't turn in a baby by the "magic" point, actually.
There is no way that fetuses can magically transform into a human or baby. It'd quite impossible, actually. Once two human gametes formed a new member of human organism is a new human being.
Let me ask you... if you can easily identity any cat fetuses as a cat, then how come you are not able to identity your own species? So, if it is not a human, then what is it? Mind you, I am talking about humans, not persons.
and i dont understand why you eat pigs when they can understand as much as a 3-year old child.
Who are they?
For your information, there are some ex-veg*ns have to go back to eat meats because of health reasons. Sometimes, they go to a hospital for the same reason. Some pregnant moms have to give their veg*nism up so they can keep their unborn babies stay healthy.
There are some more reasons why they prefer to stay meat eaters.
π: 0 β©: 1
I explained the difference between the cultural definition of "human" and the biological in my respond to amanda2324.
"they" as the pigs, and I further explained about vegetaranism in the respond.
You are welcome to respond to it, with this constructive and objective tone that you present.
π: 0 β©: 1
But, you did say a fetus is not a human until the point of visibility, or at moment of birth. Which is scientifically incorrect...
A fetus doesn't suddenly "becomes" a human by simply leaving a womb. That's reality for sure.
π: 0 β©: 1
What I am referring to, is the system's definition of "human" and if the fetus does or not does deserve the title.
π: 0 β©: 1
Then do you think you can define two words, "human" and "person" to me? What are different between two words? If it is not a human, then what is it? A mermaid? A dog? Or...?
But, I think it would be more appropriate whenever it is not a person or not. Not an argument on "it's a human or not". Because the scientific definition already stated that a fetus is a human being.
Medical Dictionary
fetus feΒ·tus (fΔ'tΙs)
n. pl. feΒ·tusΒ·es
The unborn young of a viviparous vertebrate having a basic structural resemblance to the adult animal.
In humans, the unborn young from the end of the eighth week after conception to the moment of birth.
It made clear that fetus is a human. By the way, what's a "cultural human"? I've unheard of that, unless you probably mean by "personhood"?
π: 0 β©: 1
When I mean the cultural definition, I mean what the system defines as a human such as if it deserves the principles that give them the right to live.
That does sound like it is, by the definition, "a person being" rather than "a human being". It's more accurate to define between two: a person and a human.
A human is a scientific fact, while a person is a philosophic knowledge.
π: 0 β©: 1
*applause*
Brilliant. Simply brilliant.
π: 0 β©: 1
Aha, thanks~
I just noticed he/she closed his/her account. 
Hmm...
π: 0 β©: 1
"a fetus is a developing human, yes. but just as much as a body is a dead human."
Incorrect analogy. A fetus IS a human, first of all, not just a "developing" one. Because infants are also "developing humans," since they are still developing. Secondly, a fetus is alive, a dead human body, by definition, is not.
"a fetus is as live as skin cells, and by the logic introduced, if you accept science, then you would understand that."
Incorrect analogy again; you're reducing a complex organism to being as alike as "skin cells." Regardless whether or not they have the "same amount of life" (which they don't - if you accept science, then you'll understand the differences between a fetus and skin cells. Skin cells, for example, always remain skin cells. A fetus always remains... a human. It doesn't magically turn into a baby later.), a fetus IS an innocent human being. It has a human DNA code unique of the mother's, and it is alive, plus it has committed no crimes for which it can be prosecuted for. Thus, abortion kills an innocent human being.
π: 0 β©: 1
no, i am trying to state that the logic of something helding the abstract standard of "human" does not make it's current state, human.
but they are as alive as skin cells at that state, we are discussing their state, not what they will develope into. it cannot be an "innocent" human being because it has not recieved the status of life, this is entirely normative and generally, nonsesonical. you are creating a false dilemma by stating that because a thing can develope to a baby, it automatically is life. we bascially remove it before it develops into a baby. just as we dont save the cells that develope into being a fetus which develops into being a baby, because we do not define it as life and the logic behind "because it can become" justifies that.
and also, the baby does not have conciousness because it has not developed any of the five senses so what is the further point when it will in no way harm anyone as it does not even know it exists? additionally, why do we eat pigs when they have the same intelligence as 3 year old children? becuase they arent human? isnt that evil? that we can recognize certain groups of animals as that they don't deserve to live even thought they have the same experience?
π: 0 β©: 1
"no, i am trying to state that the logic of something helding the abstract standard of "human" does not make it's current state, human."
Science's standard of human is not abstract - if it has human DNA, then it's a human. But whether what "human" thing they find is a human body (dead), human person (alive) or only a piece of a human (limb, etc.) is another thing.
"but they are as alive as skin cells at that state, we are discussing their state, not what they will develope into. it cannot be an "innocent" human being because it has not recieved the status of life, this is entirely normative and generally, nonsesonical. you are creating a false dilemma by stating that because a thing can develope to a baby, it automatically is life. we bascially remove it before it develops into a baby. just as we dont save the cells that develope into being a fetus which develops into being a baby, because we do not define it as life and the logic behind "because it can become" justifies that. "
And you and I have just as much life as skin cells.
The criteria for life, or a "living organism":
1. All life forms contain deoxyribonucleic (dee ahk' rye boh klay' ik) acid, which is called DNA.
2. All life forms have a method by which they extract energy from their surroundings and convert it into energy that sustains them.
3. All life forms can sense changes in their surroundings and respond to those changes.
4. All life forms reproduce.
A fetus meets all of these criteria. It is also a human, therefore it is a human organism, otherwise known as a human being. It's not a "might become a human," for an infant or toddler are NOT fully human, either, it's they ARE a human.
"and also, the baby does not have conciousness because it has not developed any of the five senses so what is the further point when it will in no way harm anyone as it does not even know it exists?"
Define "consciousness." Because if someone knocked you unconscious, therefore you have lost your consciousness, does that magically make it okay for them to kill you? While unconscious, you are not aware that you even exist. You cannot be aware of anything unless you are awake and conscious.
"additionally, why do we eat pigs when they have the same intelligence as 3 year old children? becuase they arent human? isnt that evil? that we can recognize certain groups of animals as that they don't deserve to live even thought they have the same experience?"
Intelligence has no bearing on whether or not we value something. Further, your analogy is incorrect. We kill pigs to EAT them, to help us survive and get the energy needed to function. Fetuses are not killed to be eaten.
π: 0 β©: 1
i am not talking about sciencetific definition, i am talking about normative standards that you introduce. the grasp to define a fetus as a human would rather be the abstract concept
i am talking about.
i object to defining a fetus as life, considering it does not follow criteria 3 and 4.
the thing is, i am a human while a fetus is not.
we come to this conclusion by stating that it has no identity or anything to represent it with because it does not know itself it exists. it has no concious
memory of the real world neither will it ever have if it dies, so no harm is done but only the logic of "it might become a human".
it has, because it shows that they percieve as much as we do.
there is enough food on this earth without eating pigs, pigs eat grass that exceeds their original nutrition value.
and the motive is irrelevant, you could aswell state that somebody does not want a baby because it would create social problems.
π: 0 β©: 1
"i am not talking about sciencetific definition, i am talking about normative standards that you introduce. the grasp to define a fetus as a human would rather be the abstract concept i am talking about."
But abstract concepts have no place in law or morals, which should be objective. Therefore, the scientific definition is the proper and correct one to use. Save the abstract part of it for philosophy, not science, and especially not law.
False, it does fall under both. The fetus DOES, in fact, respond to it's surroundings, and it DOES fall under the fourth criteria in the same way that an infant or toddler does. So I reject your objection.
"the thing is, i am a human while a fetus is not.
we come to this conclusion by stating that it has no identity or anything to represent it with because it does not know itself it exists. it has no concious
memory of the real world neither will it ever have if it dies, so no harm is done but only the logic of "it might become a human"."
False, it IS a human. Further, you have no conscious memory when you are unconscious. So is it okay to kill you when you're unconscious? How about people who are forced into slumber via doctor's medicine? Is it okay to kill them, too? What about people who are in a temporary coma? Consciousness is an incorrect and improper thing to measure a person's humanity. Again, a -human- is a scientific concept. You're trying to argue for whether or not it's a person. Two totally different things. And it IS human, and you've failed to scientifically prove otherwise.
"it has, because it shows that they percieve as much as we do.
there is enough food on this earth without eating pigs, pigs eat grass that exceeds their original nutrition value.
and the motive is irrelevant, you could aswell state that somebody does not want a baby because it would create social problems."
"Social problems" is not the same motive as "needing to survive." Therefore, again, your analogy is ill-based and almost laughable. Are you saying it should be okay for us to kill three year olds? Should people with more intelligence be seen as more valuable than those who aren't? Should my English teacher be seen as more valuable than you, since she can use proper grammar and yours is a bit lacking?
π: 0 β©: 1
no, i am stating that you are using the abstract concept by stating that it will become a human later on and that it is innocent.
do explain how it falls under the fourth criteria when it is a fetus?
no, it is not a human. as it has made no recognizion of life while coma and such are different things. and it is not human by cultural definition, it is human indeed through scientific terms, but that isnt the point here. the point here is if it can claim the title as "human" by law, just as much as cells do not simply because they do not have conciousness not because they follow the four criteria. do also note that ur government has stopped supporting comatosed patients that have been too long comatosed.
and i told you already why we don't need meat to survive. and why are you stating "almost laughable", this is ad honiem and not relevant? no, i am stating that the criteria of life you are following by understanding, would make killing animals like killing babies. thats where the abstract concept of "human" comes in. i am talking about intelligence in general, like between animals, not the normative term intelligence and your english teacher is not more intelligence because of that, the definition of intelligence is the effectiveness to learn. i can use proper grammer and spelling but i refuse to do so because i do not see the point in.
π: 0 β©: 1
"no, i am stating that you are using the abstract concept by stating that it will become a human later on and that it is innocent."
False, I'm saying that it -is- a human life, and that it -is- innocent. Because it is.
"do explain how it falls under the fourth criteria when it is a fetus?"
You'd have to take a biology class to understand, but basically, reproduction doesn't -just- mean being able to have babies. Otherwise, infants wouldn't qualify as a living organism, either.
"no, it is not a human."
Incorrect. Scientifically and objectively, it is human, and you continue to fail to prove your point.
"and it is not human by cultural definition, it is human indeed through scientific terms, but that isnt the point here."
So you agree that it is a human, and that SOME people in my culture are just too stupid to understand that. Okay.
" the point here is if it can claim the title as "human" by law, just as much as cells do not simply because they do not have conciousness not because they follow the four criteria."
This statement makes no sense to me at all. I'm starting to wonder if you are, indeed, from another country and English isn't your native language. If so, I may cease conversing with you, simply because full and proper communication is impossible.
"and i told you already why we don't need meat to survive."
False. I do. If I don't eat meat, I will get very sick and die. Maybe YOU can survive without meat, but don't be so ignorant as to claim that -everyone- is that way.
" and why are you stating "almost laughable", this is ad honiem and not relevant?"
I think you mean ad hominem, and no. An ad hominem is when I attack your CHARACTER instead of refuting your argument. I said that your argument or reasoning is almost laughable, and therefore, the fallacy has not been committed.
"no, i am stating that the criteria of life you are following by understanding, would make killing animals like killing babies."
No, in fact, you're not. The law makes a distinction between humans and animals; the fetus is a human, and therefore, automatically qualifies for protection that animals do not.
"thats where the abstract concept of "human" comes in. i am talking about intelligence in general, like between animals, not the normative term intelligence and your english teacher is not more intelligence because of that, the definition of intelligence is the effectiveness to learn. i can use proper grammer and spelling but i refuse to do so because i do not see the point in."
Yes, effectiveness to learn, which my English teacher obviously is better than you at, and therefore, my analogy is still correct. Is my teacher more worthy of rights and is more "human" and more valuable than you are because she is more intelligent than you are? Yes or no?
π: 0 β©: 1
It is not βaβ human life by any natural domain, it is the collective of cells structured by nucleic acid which we abstractly define as a human. Which is where I state that it is merely an abstract concept, similar to the definition of stars, which are distant suns out in the scape by our orginal perception combined with science. But in this discussion, we do not suceed to conquer this truth as you insist on defining it as a human by perhaps other basises that do not stay in the line of science. And it certainly is not innocent as it does not have an identity in law, and by such cannot be guilty neither innocent. Further on, comparing it to the capital punishment is giving it false properties such as that this functions as a punishment and additionally if it were to be as capital punishment, then it wouldnβt be murder and by such, an execution.
I do understand how it follows the criterias, it was merely a question to see if you base this on scientific base rather then on normative knowledge.
And there are even more criterias required but overall, these criterias are practical and not objectively proven, considering that viruses are not organisms but certain scientific perspectives define them as such even if they do not follow this criteria.
Incorrect, human is an abstract concept established in culture. As such, it is a βnormativeβ term. I am stating this, not in concept of deconstructing but rather to state that the biological definition formed by science is not relevant to the one established by society. I hope that you will not try to state that this justifies all actions done by us because we donβt follow the biological definition in, this context.
No, what I stated was that the definition of βhumanβ was normative and when culture meets this ordeal, it has to present certain arguments which are based around the system, though this may pick inspiration from the biological definition.
Whether I am from another country or English is not my native language is irrelevant and simply discriminating as you are basing it on hasty-generalization which Adolf Hitler too, used.
Just as certain people have Diabetes, they require insulin which is also retrieved from the pig. But this is an exception, and I was presuming you were referring to the general circumstances of one individual. But this is irrelevant and does not justify the general food production of meat, and this could easily be made as an exception which can be fixed.
I was merely using ad honiem as a representive term to state that your direct subjective attacks on my argument was not further developing your argument but rather functioning as rhetoric to suppress the other party, and by such was not constructive, leading this discussion to this discussion to be uncivilized.
Factum and the general system adapt from different perspectives, by a purely logical perspective, homo sapiens are animals. But we have adopted to this concept that we are greater than other animals, justifying it with certain philosophies such as Christianity or how nature is formed and that for no direct reason, we have to follow the natural system.
No, it is not correct. You are using hasty-generalization to state that because she holds more knowledge at one subject, she holds better cognitive procession which ignores the factum that I could possibly not have been taught the grammar and spelling of the language. No, when I use βintelligenceβ, I use the normative term of overall understanding. As three year olds could not come to certain conclusions which humans develop further in their life because of the cultural enviornments, which is irrelevant to the cognitive procession definition that is used in intelligence quotient.
But overall, a fetus is a human by biological definition, but is it a human by cultural definition? The real question is, does it have any reason to be defined as a human by us, considering that it does not know itβs own presence? You further state that it will become a human, but is that relevant? Sperm cells will be humans, but does that mean we have to preserve them? You give all the properties of a human per itβs cultural definition to a fetus, and that is where the problem rises.
π: 0 β©: 1
Too long, didn't read.
You seem to be in denial about what objective facts and science and continue to ramble about something else instead.
π: 0 β©: 0