Uvic Abortion Debate Oct 21st '09 Part 8 of 10

[Doobrai15]

This Dr. Guy is rude. and hes not good at debating. hes like contradicting himself, he has no idea what hes talking about

he runs in circles and these brain dead pro ABORTION people eat it up so fucking easily. use your BRAINS people come on!

[smike06]

Kluge argues the doctrine of double effect beautifully. Hes no enemy of jesus... what the heck are you on? He stands for rights that in fact exist. You can't play fairy tale games and argue that rights are 'just there'. Rights depend on the capacity to make choice, ie. the ability to accept or refuse a right. Kluge is one of the world's top ethicists. You can't argue on an ethics based issue with an ethicist by using silly religeous references. Religeon stands for ethics and morality of human

[MrAbolitionist]

Did he just make the argument that it's okay to kill the fetus because he or she might evolve into a non human? This is the type of thing that evolutionist say is a misunderstanding perpetuated by creationists. lol that was a terrible argument.

[bahramf]

@MrAbolitionist He argued that as a conceptual (hyopthetical) matter and not a possible (hypothetical) matter.

You probably don't understand those big words though, so just know that you're wrong.

[MrAbolitionist]

@bahramf ha ha I'll be honest, I kind of understand what you mean. Anyway, I don't want to get into a "What he really meant" argument

[bahramf]

@MrAbolitionist Sure, I'll argue against your implicit point instead. Which is that since fetuses always become persons, they should be treated as such while they're still only potentially persons.

That's a bad argument and Kluge explained why many times (although Gray didn't seem to stop arguing her fallacious point). As a Canadian citizen I could become Prime Minister. That doesn't mean I should be treated like the PM now though. I should actually become PM to be treated like the PM.

[MrAbolitionist]

@bahramf He said that sentience is the definition of personhood. A newborn isn't sentient yet we still treat them with human rights and we don't consider them non-person, sentience therefore isn't an accurate measerng for personhood.  The main idea of human rights is that rights are inherent in whoever is human. Therefore he's wrong to say that the fetuses humanity isn't sufficient to consider them persons who deserves rights.

[bahramf]

@MrAbolitionist A NEWBORN IS SENTIENT!!!!

The main idea of human rights is not that rights are inherent in whoever is a human!

Where do you get this information (your ass)?

[bahramf]

@MrAbolitionist NEWBORNS ARE SENTIENT!!!!!

Human rights are not based on humanity.

Where do you get your information from?

[bahramf]

@MrAbolitionist Newborns are sentient! Where do you get your information from?

That's not the basis of human rights at all. Where do you get your information from?

[bahramf]

@MrAbolitionist Do you know anything about the basis for human rights at all?

Read either Hume, Weber or Rawls. None of them say anything like human rights are based on humanity. If that were true brain-dead people would have human rights.

Maybe you think they should, but you'd be wrong. Maybe you're brain-dead?

[amariner5]

This Dr. Kluge is very full of himself. And full of hot air. Does he actually believe what he says? He admits abortion is killing. And says it's OK. He is the enemy Jesus says we have to pray for. He is full of false witness.

[bahramf]

@amariner5 He would also admit that killing a cow is killing. Don't be stupid. killing is not immoral, killing persons is (most of the time).

[bahramf]

@bahramf "(most of the time)" because, despite what Gray says, killing people to save more people is ethically permissible killing.