I guess i should add "democrats - inspired by Satan" to my tagline.
Posted on 03/11/2011 10:44:37 AM PST by wagglebee
HALIFAX, Nova Scotia, March 9, 2011 (LifeSiteNews.com) - Pro-abortion activists sought, unsuccessfully, to disrupt a debate on abortion at Dalhousie University Tuesday night by ripping down ads, setting off stink-bombs, and covering the ceiling with helium balloons featuring pro-abortion slogans. In the end, they even turned on the pro-abortion speaker.
Representing the pro-life side of the debate was Stephanie Gray, co-founder and executive director of the Canadian Centre for Bioethical Reform. Facing Gray was Dr. Mark Mercer, chairperson of the philosophy department at Halifax’s St. Mary’s University, who has in the past won the ire of pro-abortion activists for defending the rights of pro-lifers to express their opinions on university campuses.
While Gray argued that the unborn should be protected in law because abortion is the violent killing of innocent human life, Mercer argued that there is nothing ethically troubling about abortion, at one point suggesting that a baby isn’t a “person” until around 18 months of age.
The event, which was organized by the new student group Pro-Life at Dal, attracted about 150 students and members of the public.
In her remarks, Gray pointed out that the scientific community is unanimous that life begins at fertilization. At fertilization, she explained, the child “has everything she needs within herself to direct her growth and to move to the next more mature stage of her development.”
Mercer agreed that the unborn are human beings, and that abortion is the deliberate killing of a human being, but argued that the notion of “human being” is not a “morally relevant concept.” Individuals are not special by virtue of their “species membership,” he said, but become “persons” and worthy of protection because they possess certain “ethically salient properties” such as the ability to experience pain or pleasure, self-consciousness, and rationality.
Gray, however, maintained that the Universal Declaration of Human Rights deliberately speaks of ‘human’ and not ‘person’ rights because the powerful have often sought to subjugate or kill the vulnerable by claiming they are not persons. She pointed to examples like the Holocaust and the enslavement of African Americans.
“We have a nasty history as human beings of denying our fellow human beings the right to live because we divorce the concept of human and person as to treat them as two separate things,” she said.
She said the criteria used to define personhood come down to non-essential differences - namely size, level of development, environment, and dependency - and that these criteria are constantly changing for an individual. “Human is an objective term that we can determine scientifically,” she explained. “Person is a philosophical or legal term which has had a changing definition throughout history.”
“Our humanity, our right to life, should be based on that which is unchanging, which is our human nature - rather than that which is changing, which is our functions and abilities,” she added.
Gray argued that all humans carry intrinsic worth because of our common human nature, by which we are “moral, rational agents.” If an individual doesn’t exhibit signs of rationality, such as a developing baby or a disabled person, they nevertheless have the “inherent ability,” even if they don’t have the “current ability.”
“I don’t understand what this thing humanity is or the property of being human,” retorted Mercer, “such that an anancephalic infant is a rational being just as the rest of us. ... Here’s a creature who doesn’t have a capability and yet it’s still in the essence of that creature that it has that capability. That makes no sense to me.”
Gray said, however, “just because some humans are damaged, so to speak, I would say that doesn’t mean that we can end their lives because they’re not as developed or ‘perfect’ as we are.”
According to Mercer, a child likely only gains personhood at around 18 months to two years of age, and he also suggested at one point that adult pigs might be persons. Though he said he couldn’t imagine a reason to justify killing a born child given the availability of adoption, he said upon further questioning that “if the child isn’t a person, it’s not an offense against the child to kill it.”
A principled vegetarian, he agreed that it could be wrong to kill a pig even though he believes it’s acceptable to kill a child in the womb.
Asked by Gray how he justified defining a person based on his list of properties, Mercer responded, “Why should I take humanity to be ... a morally salient property?”
The most vocal pro-abortion voices at the event were obviously displeased with Mercer’s presentation, slamming him in the open forum at the end of the evening. “You didn’t even attempt to make any arguments that would convince anybody of anything,” said one activist. “You did not represent the pro-choice position at all.”
Though inviting them to e-mail him better arguments, Mercer nevertheless defended his view as the only cogent approach. He dismissed arguments based on “women’s struggle for equality” saying that that they fail to address the “moral status of the fetus,” and disagreed with approaches that claim a woman’s “right to choose” outweighs the unborn child’s “right to life,” saying that these only come into conflict in a “narrow range of cases,” such as rape.
Another pro-abortion advocate even suggested that the pro-life group had deliberately brought in a poor representative for their side, while flying Gray in from Calgary. Yet Mercer noted that he has published his arguments in national newspapers, and local pro-life advocates insist he’s been the only one willing to even debate the issue, despite efforts to find a representative through local university pro-abortion groups.
I normally don’t give into even expressing only verbally such feelings . . . however . . .
this insane jerk deserves to be castrated slowly with a rusty razor blade.
We’ve had a few threads on Lia Mills, she is an amazing young woman.
http://www.freerepublic.com/tag/liamills/index?tab=articles
I guess i should add "democrats - inspired by Satan" to my tagline.
They are just moving their argument forward. It starts out like this with all of their ideas. Gays coming out of the closet. Now gays want to marry. Next it will be a brother and sister. Nambla’s the same. They slowly try to desensitize the populace to accept any abnormal and/or evil idea. It’s part of any effort to destroy Western civilization and so far they are doing a great job.
What if they start killing toddlers without ever having to “shoot first”?
The disgusting leftists in the audience weren’t even outraged that he was calling for the legalized murder of walking talking human beings. I have an 18 month old nephew and if any leftist rodent tried to harm a hair on his head I would torture that rodent for a 100 years. I would make it suffer so intensely that it would beg for death long before the end.
After all they have gotten away with so far how much more do we have to let them get away with? I would far sooner put a bullet through my own head than witness the total triumph of the vermin.
/sarc
I like where you are going with this FRiend.
Here is a link to a 12 month old -
http://images.waterfrontmedia.com/wte/cms/toddler/article_photos/month_13.jpg
And next - GASP - a 6 month old : )
http://proudtointroduce.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2008/08/outdoor-6-month-portraits-milwaukee.jpg
Prayers for Japan.
Tatt
Peter Singer is a conservative on this issue. Last I heard he “only” thinks a child should be able to be offed up to a month after birth.
Just look at that smirking demon. So clever with his MA. and ph.D. A servant of Baal.
I really deplore the whole idea of torture . . . for almost any reason except, maybe, for saving the righteous.
This guy needs to appreciate the hell he’s headed for, particularly without repentance and confession.
May he have nightmares from all the aborted babies . . . may he have nightmares living in a society constructed on his values.
May he never have any solid sleep the rest of his life.
May he vividly realize his values are a dead in torturous, hideous cul de sac of misery.
May he waddle around with his head where the sun doesn’t shine as long as he has breath.
She sure is, sharp, real sharp. I bet there isn’t an adult that is for abortion from PPH or where ever, that could debate her and stay rational.
Peter Singer is a conservative on this issue. Last I heard he “only” thinks a child should be able to be offed up to a month after birth.
I recall hims saying 2 year of age.
This is identical to the claims made about Jews by the Nazis and by the people who promoted slavery. In their opinion both Jews and blacks were sub-human and not entitled to the status of personhood.
Amen!!!
Never forget that the liberals/Democrats/socialists believe that our planet can only support 20 million people. That means that 298 million of us in this nation have to go, and they think euthenasia and starvation are commendable ways of reducing the population. Folks, they don’t just disagree with you...they want you to die so they can walk in the woods without seeing any of those bothersome people.
While Gray argued that the unborn should be protected in law because abortion is the violent killing of innocent human life, Mercer argued that there is nothing ethically troubling about abortion, at one point suggesting that a baby isn’t a “person” until around 18 months of age.
So he thinks it's okay to kill a child up to 18 months old, but it's not okay to kill a pig? Why would anyone take anything he says seriously? His mental facilities are obviously deficient.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
