I engaged in a conversation over the issue of abortion, capital punishment, and etc. I will share it below:
I beg your pardon! How do you square the death penalty with standing for life. Please explain.
VincentthefakeGregBahnsen:
You have the burden to show the inconsistency. Maintaining some people can revoke the right to live doesn’t entail that everyone else doesn’t have the right to life.
I think it’s pretty clear that killing people is not pro-life. Even if the people did bad things.
VincentthefakeGregBahnsen:
I think pretty clear that you can’t show that. Claiming Self-evidence is an excuse for not demonstrating your beliefs in most instances. Is Just-war theory not pro-life? Are you against just war theory as well?
Schmaniel:
yes, there’s no such thing as a “just war”, because there will always be innocent casualties caught in the crossfire. same goes for the death penalty, some of them are truly innocent of the crimes they’ve been accused.
abortion, on the other hand, is banned with extreme exceptions after the 24th week, and abortions after the 20th week are already extremely rare and usually under extreme conditions.
so, what’s the big deal about that window? the fetus’s internal systems are still developing and until they completely differentiate (around the 24th week with rare exception) it’s literally impossible for them to survive outside the womb, we don’t have the science to sustain it.
so, what’s the big deal about that window? the fetus’s internal systems are still developing and until they completely differentiate (around the 24th week with rare exception) it’s literally impossible for them to survive outside the womb, we don’t have the science to sustain it.
with the exception of white evangelicals and protestants, a majority of major religions support an individual’s right to choose, even if they wouldn’t make that choice themselves do you support the first amendment to freedom of religion and freedom from religious oppression?
VincentthefakeGregBahnsen:
Firstly, I find this a rather radical belief. The idea that we should never go to war because innocents will die seems to me rather silly. We shouldn’t have fought the Nazis because it would lead to innocent people dying. Strange position but possible in some sense.
This also means any form of punishment would be immoral because all judicial sentencing is fallible. You would need God to have an actual justice system. Furthermore, parents shouldn’t punish their children in any form because they might be wrong. These counterintuitive costs.
Schmaniel:
once again, yes, capital punishment in its current form is immoral, abolition is a growing movement the more people learn about the injustices and inequality within the system abolishing the death penalty is a reasonable first step, considering how many innocents are free now
thanks for proving my point, just because i personally don’t believe in a just war, and would never participate, i accept that sometimes outside forces make it impossible to prevent. i have several relatives who fought nazis, and they agreed with me, none wanted to see war again
VincentthefakeGregBahnsen:
Yeah but the point is that nobody actually believes your principle. You don’t and these are examples that show such. If you did, then you would just bite the bullet and affirm the silly implications of your position.
My point isn’t whether it is desired by people but whether it is morally good and possibly objectively obligatory. On this point, your relatives were morally wrong in your view. They shouldn’t have done such but did because they chose selfishness over duty. I don’t agree with that position and I’m arguing against it, follow along.
Schmaniel:
which “principle”? the *fact* that there’s a growing movement to upend the prison industrial complex, or the *fact* that it’s morally wrong to execute innocent people?
i’ve dealt with my share of arrogant assholes who use outdated/incorrect grammar because they think it makes them sound smart, and tons more who accuse me of not understanding their “criticisms”, but saying i don’t understand my own? that’s a new level of stupid.
how often do people tell that you don’t make sense? i can guarantee it’s more times than i’ve been told i don’t understand my own points because you’re the first in over two decades of arguing on the internet.
one of them was a field medic who saved lives, another was a minister, i would never dare question their morality. but like i said, after experiencing it they were deeply opposed to it. you don’t seem capable of this type of nuance.
VincentthefakeGregBahnsen:
You dare not question grandfather’s ethics but questioning all “white Protestant” ethics is a free game. There were many that experienced WW2 and were left scared knowing what they did was necessary to stop one of the world’s most evil forces in history. In your perspective, WW2 veterans are villains that broke the rule. They had no right to fight back in your perspective.
The principle is that the taking of human life is inadmissible because you may have misinterpreted the data. There is always some chance you’re taking the life of an innocent person. This is just the nature of inductive/abductive reasoning. I pointed out the implications that no system of punishment (jails, prisons, slavery, counseling) would work because they may all contain innocent people framed for the crimes. I should have held your hand through the conversation because you aren’t following the argument. The obvious consequence is pacifism of the highest regard.
I think this is why no one is surprised you hear this a lot. Given that you have [tons more who accuse me of not understanding their “criticisms”] you should probably start listening to them.
Secondly, I’m going to respond to some other things you stated:
You said that “is banned with extreme exceptions after the 24th week”. This is partially true. The problem is that it isn’t true nationally:
In places such as New York, you can get an abortion at up to 24 weeks of pregnancy. After 24 weeks, you can still get an abortion if your health is at risk or your pregnancy will not survive. Other places, such as Colorado and Washington, DC, can also provide abortion services after 24 weeks of pregnancy for any reason.
Furthermore, the activists in this country continue to try to push these things further past these arbitrary lines:
https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/01/infanticide-craze-new-york-virginia-abortion-laws/
I don’t think viability is a coherent standard of personhood. Even if they survive out of the womb, why think that means they are a person? Say technology can take the baby from the mother and become a surrogate for the mother. Should she still have the right? It is no longer dependent upon her other than these special technologies. I bet you still would advocate the right to kill the child because of a woman’s feelings. That means it was never about viability apart from the mother. Furthermore, it seems problematic to state that one is human based on what modern technology can do. Viability can become earlier and earlier. So, it seems a bit odd to think that humans were different (inherently) before the next medical invention.
I don’t know what the major religions teach on abortion. I think Islam and Roman Catholicism are the two largest and they are generally against abortions. So, seems prima facia evidence against your claim. Furthermore, Protestantism is true. So, I really don’t care what the others state.
Schmaniel:
so you run away from answering my questions, or inquiring about the murders of innocent people on death row, then add a bunch of paragraphs on your unsecured blog to get the last word in?
VincentthefakeGregBahnsen:
It isn’t murder. Murder is the intentional taking of human life. Accidentally executing someone that appears guilty from all available evidence isn’t murder. Some may be murdered because of the bias of a judiciary, but that isn’t usually the case for modern trials. You have the right to respond, but I will respond in the best medium for me. I already had the last word. You haven’t made a good point for most of this conversation. You’re now posturing to say I avoided your questions in order to help your self-esteem.
The Council 