The giving birth part would happen with 100% of pregnancies brought to term.
It would. It's still being made out to be worse than it actually is
That it is a natural reaction does not mean that it isn't harmful.
You would have to paint with a really wide brush in order to consider everything on the list to be harmful
You have misread my argument - what I am saying is not about the intent of person claiming self-defense, it is that it doesn't matter whether the harm posed is intentional or not.
I did misread a little bit. Even still, harm being intentional is the difference between murder and involuntary manslaughter
You have the right to self-defense regardless of whether the virus, or crazy person, or fetus intends to harm you.
We do have the right to self-defense. The only problem I have with your argument for self-defense is your conflation of a baby with a virus and a crazy person
I only do partial quotes for brevity. I don't believe I have taken anything you've said out of context - if so, please point it out. I think this may be related to the above point of confusion.
It seemed like you were. Take the virus thing for example. I asked a question if you were comparing a baby to a bacteria, virus, and a tapeworm. It seemed like you completely ignored the second half of the question. If thats not what you meant, I apologize. Thats just how I took it
Do you think it should be prevented if the only possible means to prevent it is to shoot the perpetrator?
Maybe just a part of the body that would prevent the perpetrator from continuing to rape the person
Some of these pressures might be exacerbated for younger women, but hormones and social pressures affect pregnant women of all ages.
Young or old, like I said earlier, you would have to paint with a really wide brush in order to consider that harmful
I'll put both responses into one for convenience.
With the list of side effects that was listed, I'll tell you what I told him. It either doesn't happen as often as you think it does or its made out to be worse than it actually is. Some of the common "side effects" that are on the list are either natural biological reactions that are there to prepare the mothers body for being pregnant or are a side effect of the biological reaction. They are only as bad as you say they are if you make them out to be that bad.
I am saying intent is not a necessary factor at all.
A couple things. First, if you're going to make a habit of taking what I say out of context, I would respectfully ask you to stop. Otherwise, I would like to discontinue this debate. Second, I never said it was. In fact, I started off my response agreeing with you that intent on the part of the person defending them self does not need to be proven. Regardless of whether intent for self-defense needs to be there, it is still being assumed the intent is harmful
not actively seeking - just that it will happen.
Only if the baby is actively seeking to harm the mother
The argument was about intent, and the examples don't have any. Your response is the typical one which is why I also included an example of a human without intent which should answer the question. Is a baby no better than a person - becomes a non-argument.
I didn't ask if the baby is no better than a person. I take it you know that since you had to stop mentioning what I said right in front of where the rest of the question is. What you choose to highlight in terms of what I say makes me inclined to think that you are deliberately trying to take what I say out of context and for this case twist what I say in order to make a straw man
Do you think it should be prevented if the only possible means to prevent it is to shoot the perpetrator?
Shoot what perpetrator? I thought we were talking about bacteria, viruses, and tapeworms?
Where did I make this argument?
Maybe not that one specific argument. I shouldn't have just said that you said this, but this is what I gathered that your argument for self defense was based on what you have been saying
Changes in hormones that influence mental state. The possible mental anguish from fear of response by family, friends, the father, etc.
Are we still talking about a pregnant woman or are talking about a teenage girl going through puberty thats hanging out with the wrong crowd?
While I am sure there are ambiguous areas in this regard, the line, for me, is surely passed when I think of the harms (hormonal/mental/emotional, social, financial, physical, etc., etc.) posed by even a normal pregnancy.
Would you be willing to give examples of what you mean by the harms posed by normal pregnancy?
Intent is not a required element for self-defense.
You’re right but the other person is required to prove if the level of self defense was justified, assuming it was even necessary in the first place. You are assuming the level of harmful intent on the part of the second person that requires that level of self defense. While the example you give does justify self-defense, you were still assuming that the baby in the mothers womb is actively seeking to harm the mother
You have the right to defend yourself from bacteria, viruses, tape-worms, etc. - who can't be said to have an intent to harm you.
You do you have the right to defend against bacteria, viruses, tapeworms, and stuff like that. My question for you is, do you think that the baby is no better than one of these bacteria, viruses or tapeworms or do you think that the baby is like one of these bacteria, viruses, or tapeworms?
So, just to clarify, don't shoot a person if they are only committing rape - wait for them to move toward killing?
First off, rape is a horrible crime. I think it should be punished severely. However, your argument is that I only defend myself appropriately against the level of aggression that I am met with which doesn’t justify defense of another. How do you factor in the defense of another in this case?
Pregnancy can certainly have the same. (and so can abortion)
How so?
For me the factors for justifying killing are the amount of harm posed, and the available alternatives for preventing that harm.
At what point would you say it is unreasonable for someone to say that another person is causing them harm?
In the case of abortion, the alternatives are basically reduced to one, so the issue becomes what level of danger justifies killing someone else.
How much danger would you say justifies killing someone else?
What I look for in that regard is that people show some degree of consistency; if, for example, a person believes they can shoot someone in their house who is about to leave with their tv and some valuables, etc. - thus financial harm and possibly some mental harm, then they should probably support all abortions.
The problem is with the consistency in this line of reasoning. You're comparing someone who is actively trespassing and actively seeking to causing some kind of harm to someone else. You're comparing that to a baby who never asked to be in the mothers womb and is not actively seeking to cause the mother
Can you kill in order to prevent a rape?
I personally would say that killing the rapist could be allowed should the person try to start killing me or someone else.
What harms are posed by rape that are not posed by carrying a pregnancy to term?
With rape, theres actual psychological and emotional trauma that may take the person years, if not their entire life to get past. With carrying a baby to term, theres some physical pain with the labor as well as actually giving birth that only lasts as long as it takes to give birth and doesn't stick with the mom
I'm looking for the criteria one should use to distinguish between killing that should be criminal and killing that should not.
How do you, as in you the person, distinguish between the two?
Isn't "Abortion is murder" only an assertion as well?
It is but you haven’t said anything for which I can bring forth evidence. If you want more than an assertion, then actually ask for evidence
You may have to define that too - is self-defense "[k]illing someone in cold blood"?
That depends, are you looking for any reason you can to try and kill someone?
No, but if you think it isn't, then there is a debate where you can make your case. It shows my reasoning behind making the argument which can inform your opinion about whether it is reasonable.
We're talking here so lets make the case here. I've read you're arguments on the other debate. There was maybe one case were you actually brought forth an actual rebuttal to an argument someone else wrote. However, where else is there in the debate anything more than an assertion?
Whether you are a Christian, Muslim or a Jew, there is no moral difference.
According to who?
The God of the old testament is the main character of all three religions.
You mean the trinitarian God of the Christians, Allah separate from the Christians and the Jews, and the unitarian God of the Jews?
The God of the old testament is one of the most evil characters in all fiction.
According to who?
If you truly used the moral teachings of their books, you would be a criminal in every country known to man.
Maybe if you're muslim. Where are Jews and Christians expected to kill someone simply for unbelief?
It would make you a racist, misogynistic, masochistic, sycophantic, homophobic, homicidal, infanticidal, genocidal, sadistic, child molesting, rapist. There is nothing good that can come from living your life by this dogma.
All the problems that Christians have with Islam comes from the same book that they themselves follow.
Who said the bible and the koran were the same thing?
The fact that there are good Christians and good Muslims is only evidence that there are good people in the world.
What do you mean by good people?
Religion is an insult to human dignity.
According to who?
Without it you would still have good people doing good things and bad people doing bad things. But to get good people to do bad things, that takes religion.
According to who?
Everyone is more moral than the God of the Bible, Quran, and Torah.
According to who?
It is true that those who believe in the true God go to heaven, but I would also change this slightly. Here's what I mean. We are told to confess with your mouth that Jesus Christ is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead
After thinking about this for some time, I realized that all I have is indirect evidence at my disposal. I sincerely apologize for not getting to that sooner. I will do what I can to explain myself without trying to go into special pleading. When it comes to nature, if the natural world cannot account for something, where else would you look? The evidence points to something either inside or outside the universe. While I have used God as an explanatory mechanism the same way you described in the past, I have started to use a natural, scientific explanation for things. However, that does not take God out of the picture. God is still the one that created and sustains everything. My evidence for this, although indirect, is that nature could not have created itself thus justifying a beginner. I do not want to go down the rabbit hole of trying to prove that its specifically the God of Christianity unless you would want to. That though has more indirect evidence. I feel like I'm rambling now and to be honest, I only wrote as much as I did because I forgot what you wanted evidence for
This isn’t necessarily directed at you but I think the claim that there is no evidence for something then to me, it just shows that you were not willing to look at evidence that could prove otherwise. I think that for the most part you can find a natural for something But when you require something outside the system that the natural world cannot account for then to me it will require something outside the system to have caused it. I think the main difference though between us is that I have not philosophically ruled out God. I am not trying to make a jab at you by saying this, I just wanted to point it out the difference
You're right. I did. At the moment, the best I can do is creation. What I mean is all the intricacies about creation that can't be explained outside of direct creation from a being outside of it which as I am writing this sounds more like indirect evidence. I apologize but I think I spoke earlier without thinking about what it was I was saying. Although I personally can't think of direct evidence, other than Jesus and creation, at the moment, I am sure there is
To be honest, I didn't look into it before I said what I did. From what I remember hearing, there are prophecies that Jesus fulfilled and prophecies that are meant for the end times. Those may be the ones you are referring to. If not let me know. Maybe this may help you
Fair point. The best answers I can give at the moment are deductions and inferences to the best explanation. Proof beyond the shadow of a doubt that Jesus was who he said he was, not sure that anything comes to mind but one thing I think helps are all the prophecies that came true surrounding Jesus. In terms of the miracles, I just have a question to clarify something for me. Do you think miracles are impossible?
I think you know the typical response that Christians will give you in terms of direct evidence. Jesus and the world around us. I would argue that to say Jesus doesn't exist would be ignoring all the historical writings about Him. I do recognize that you don't think the writings are credible, however, when there are 10's of thousands of documents talking about his existence (and not necessarily his deity), its hard to not find them credible. I guess my point is that if his existence is going to be denied, then its going to have to be argued with every single history department. I guess all the historical evidence would be considered indirect evidence, but that still leaves the eyewitness testimony. For the world around us, its primarily going to rely on an objective, unbiased standpoint. What I mean by that is I can't outright assume something supernatural, but at the same time you can't outright assume something natural, not that you do that already.
