₦airaland Forum

Logicboy03: You are lost.


Retrace your steps back to what we were debating. Twisting and turning has confused you clearly.

Taking my reply to deepsight as a reply to your argument.....



Anyways, the point has been made. Your christian backed opinion has led to blackmarket and toilet abortions, babies that grow up to be juvenile deliquents and frustrated mothers.

My opinions have led to a more civil society with women getting the best options she has for her pregnancy- counselling before deciding to abort or not. Proper doctors handling the abortion and most of all, the woman deciding her future.

Lol of course. Even the nazis also believed that their opinions led to a more civil society

mazaje1: So your god sending his alleged chosing men to kill of others, ravage their women, loot their lands is objectively good as long as it is part of his plans, eh?. . .Well done. . .Let me hear you call any muslim terrorist a savage. . .

Happy jumping sir.

thehomer: If we both agree, then why bother with that? If you agree that your handle starts with an "M" and I agree that it does start with an "M" why waste time explaining the angles between the lines forming the letter? We already agree on what the letter is.

Not when you left human well-being completely vague undefined. I can't read your mind bro

If it were malicious, then what it does impacts negatively on human well-being.

My apologies, I should have been clearer. I'll rephrase.
Explain to me exactly how you would know that the designer ought not to act in a certain way if he chose to design you to see that way as the right way to act

That means you know something about this designer's purpose. Are you ever going to tell us what its purpose is?

You have not yet accepted that the designer's purpose is what determines how his creation ought to be

thehomer: Oh I'm in agreement with that. It just means that you were railing against views you actually had.

I never said I didn't agree with you, I only demanded you justify it.

I do not agree because I don't accept the premise of a designer. That renders the rest of your statement moot.

Now even if I granted you the notion of a designer, if the designer were malicious, it would mean that he is not in a position to assess what affects this well-being positively. That is why you have to know something about the designer you're proposing.

Explain to me exactly how you would know that the designer ought not to be malicious if he chose to design you to see maliciousness as a great making quality.

Once you accept the idea of goodness being related to positive well-being, then the "objective good" you're harping on about isn't necessary for assessment.

Not so my friend I am defining human well-being based on the designer's purpose. That's what is objectively good for humans.

Deep Sight: Humans have been on the Earth for thousands of years and, being intelligent beings, have sought to rationalize their existence on this planet: to understand and contextualize it; and this has in most cases resulted over generations into one form of religious thought or the other.

Are there any key aspects of religious thinking that you would consider to hold true as per human reality and existence?

I am not an atheist but I'll answer. Here are some truths for you

1. The Cosmos has a beginning
2. There is such a thing as objective good and objective evil.
3. There is such a thing as justice
4. Truth is valuable
5. Life is sacred
6. Man is not merely a material being
7. S[color=#000000]ex[/color] is sacred

plaetton: The non-custodial religions like Buddhism and Confucianism have a holistic view of reality that is non-contradictory, non-oppressive and is not biased in favour of any social class.

The pagan religions of most cultures also share holistic worldviews of reality and existence where everything, including morality and social justice are interconnected.

The monotheistic religions, on the hand, Rob and arrogate all the attributes of nature and existence to a contrived custodial deity, who then, through an elite priesthood, demands, in summary, the sacrifice of human freedom and dignity.
Nothing that compromises human dignity can be seen as containing a grain of universal truth within it.

I hope you do realize that he asked you to point out the truths.

Are you saying that human dignity is a universal truth? If yes, how do you know it to be true?

Why not squirrel dignity or cockroach dignity or elephant dignity? Why is human dignity especially true?

thehomer: Huh? Is the business a person? We're talking about people here so that introduction is irrelevant.

The concept of ownership is not restricted to human beings alone.

1. You're making a fundamental error in thinking that logical possibility somehow implies physical possibility. It simply doesn't.

The concept of "ownership" itself is not a physical. A logical possibility is very appropriate here.

2. Uploading a person's consciousness (I'm granting the logical possibility not the physical possibility) still won't place it in the same category as a car because once the person is "booted up", that consciousness is already changed because the memory aspect of it is automatically altered.

Lol, In the same way the car is changed because a new owner drives it. As I said all that matters here is whether it is a transferable property. If that logical possibility exists, then they are in the same category.

3. It is or may soon be physically possible to clone a person but surely you must know that a cloned body still isn't your body. It is a clone of your body.

You can also give away all your actual body parts if you like just like a car

Wow. How did you make the leap to it being possible to transfer your body and your mind? Please can you show me where this mind and body transfer has been done barring movies?

Is it logically possible? Yes it is.

To avoid confusion, please take a look at the definition here and let me know the one that best matches what you're asking for. If it isn't available there, then you're welcome to clarify your question.

I don't see any one of them that doesn't fit. None of them is impossible to transfer or make clones of.

The concept of ownership is generally accepted as a given though what I will do here is to show you that it has to be taken as a given by logically denying any reason you try to give if it weren't accepted as a given.

And here you agree with me that it is properly basic that one has rights over what one owns

Well, nothing is entirely your creation. You didn't create the atoms that you used to perform your secondary or tertiary creation.

I'd say that the words I have been typing are entirely my creation. the pixels by which they are expressed is owned by my computer and the website upon which they are expressed is owned by Seun.

You don't own anything so cannot transfer anything.

I do and I can

This of course means that if someone prevents you from eating your food, then that food is theirs since they sustained its existence rather than permitting it to stop existing with your consumption.

Or if someone take a severely ill child to a hospital and that child gets treated, then the doctor or the hospital staff or even the hospital now own that child.

To "sustain the existence of something" is a pretty suspicious way to go. I don't think you'll like such a world.

reductio ad absurdum. While I'll grant that "sustains" is a weaker reason than creation, I'll point out the sense in which I mean a thing is sustained.
I created my words on this thread. Nairaland sustains them as the platform upon which they are expressed and hence owns them in a sense.

Well, you own nothing so you have rights over . . . nothing.

I have shown that I own some things

But we're talking about human beings aren't we?

No we're talking about the concept of ownership and then testing human life against that concept.

As you can see, if we don't grant that, your idea of property ownership won't get off the ground.

Your point is moot. I granted that the concept of ownership is a given. What I didn't grant was that human beings own their lives.

Logicboy03: nope, 60% of them are before 9th week
88%/90% before 12 week

not at the 12th week but before





Note that you were disagreeing with me when i said tha your pic of an aborted baby is not what most aborted babies look like. Dont change the subject

I haven't failed to notice that you are no longer contesting whether the baby is human being or not. What you are now contesting is the difference between the words "at" and "before".

Let me quote you

Logicboy03: Agreed but there is a problem......there cant be a limit on when to abort....

Anony and I went to a debate in London about whether there should be a limited time for abortion. Most people there were for abortion but they were ready to leave the decision to the mother or to the state for a limited abortion. The woman or women should decide.

The major reason was that...no one can truly decide when a baby in the womb is "truly human" or "truly conscious"......a slippery slope


-A point which I raised in the debate;
If a woman was kidnapped for 7 months and raped.....then, she was rescued later with a 7 month plus pregnancy, shouldnt she have the right to get an abortion?

You have justified abortion all through the 9 months. I don't even have to argue over what "most abortions look like". That's like trying to justify murder by arguing over what "most murders look like".

All you have to do now is answer one question: Is the baby in the womb a human being or not?

thehomer: Don't you realize what you've just said? This has to be huge irony. You're equating good with well-being when you say what is in bold.

That's exactly the same thing you've been doing earlier

Oh I agree with the first part in bold but not the part about this designer unless of course you can tell me something about this designer like whether or not it cares about human well-being at the very least.

Lol, he doesn't have to or are you about to give me a reason why he must?
All I have said is that the way a human being ought to be cannot be objective unless there is a definite purpose which a designer has designed them to fulfill.

Do you agree? If not, give me a logical reason why you disagree

So are you ready to answer the questions in the OP?

We haven't established an objective good yet

thehomer: Your idea will show us what you think it means to be good. I think that has to be looked at before trying to assess this objectivity.

Fair enough let me help you so we can move this foward:-

My argument is simple:
Objective good is dependent on an objective human well-being (i.e. the way a human ought to be). We can only legitimately say that there is way humans are supposed to be if there is a designer who has purposely designed humans to be a certain way.

Do you accept this? If not, why do you disagree?

wiegraf: You were only a heartless dolt in as much as you were advocating blatantly infringing on the rights of people, ruining the lives of many along the way.

Lol, of course who am I to infringe upon the rights of murderers to kill human beings.

Btw, again, they are not babies.

Lol, is that what you tell yourself to ease your conscience?

Perhaps I should find pictures of sperm and make the same silly appeal you just made?

Yeah, and I'll find pictures of red blood cells as well.

wiegraf: Well, I remember you calling me a murderer, and I'm not the only one.

And no, those are not babies.

You were only called a murderer in as much as you were advocating the unjust killing of those babies.

p/s I didn't actually call you a murderer but I'll admit it was implied in my statements.

thehomer: Using your own idea of what good is should enable to answer the question. So, simply use that to answer the question for yourself.

..and what use will my idea of good be if we don't know what is objectively good.

Logicboy03: According to Statistics Canada, 0.7% of all abortions performed in 2003 occurred after 20 weeks of gestation, with 90% occurring in the first 12 weeks
http://www.canadiansforchoice.ca/mythbrochure.pdf



Eighty-eight percent of abortions occur in the first 12 weeks of pregnancy, 2006.(USA)
(61.8% before the 9th week)
http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/fb_induced_abortion.html




https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/57/Prenatal_development_table.svg/1850px-Prenatal_development_table.svg.png


Week 12
https://www.babycenter.com/i/m/fetal/index/8.jpg

Interesting... here's a picture of an aborted 12 week old fetus

https://www.priestsforlife.org/images/baby-phillip-01.jpg

[size=14pt]THE ABOVE PICTURE IS WHAT MOST ABORTIONS LOOK LIKE. 90% of them actually[/size]


Tell me again, logicboy. Is that a human being or not?
Tell me again, Am I a 1-dimensional heartless dolt for pleading that he should be allowed to live?

@thehomer, let me take what I consider to be your strongest objections

That presumption that a person doesn't have rights to their lives but have rights to property is simply inconsistent and that is what has lead you to your incoherent assertions.

This is not inconsistent. A business can own assets but this doesn't mean that the business therefore must own itself before it can be said to own assets.

I see there's an equivocation here. He doesn't have something like he has a car, he has something by virtue of his own presence like having consciousness. Besides, even if the life he had were like having a car, you're once again ignoring the implication of this line of reasoning.
No he doesn't because the person can give away his car and watch someone else drive away with it but cannot give away his life and watch someone else live it. No, I'm saying a life isn't like a car that can be given to someone else to live.

Basically, the crux of your argument here is that as long as life is not transferable, it is not in the same category as a car.
Well, my friend, would you say that it is logically impossible for a person to extract his consciousness and upload it to a computer? If you accept this possibility, then your consciousness falls in the same category as your car.
Is it logically possible to clone your body? If this is true, then your body also falls in the same category as your car.

Since it is possible to transfer both the possession of your body and your mind, tell me again why they don't fall into the same category of other properties that can be transfered? alternatively, you can tell me what other thing constitutes life apart from mind and body.

Now to clarify, I'll give reasons where something can be said to be owned and you must give reasons to tell me exactly why you find them unsatisfactory if you happen to do so.
1. You own something if it is entirely your creation
2. You can transfer this ownership if you sell it or give it away to someone else
3. You can claim ownership if you sustain the existence of something.

Finally what you own, you have rights over it(that is what it means to own something)

Note by someone, I don't necessarily mean human being.

[quote author=*Kails*]yeah..because sometimes i feel only the "agnostic" atheists have a sense of morality.
the strict atheists and their "follow follow crew pets" talk a way sometimes
that's truly troubling.

all this "survival of the fittest" bull.
Nothing but selfishness.

*logicboy will enter thread in.*

[size=18pt]5-4-3-2-1[/size][/quote]Logicboy is already on the thread spreading his nonsense as usual.

Logicboy03: Emotional boolshyt abi?

You started the emotional argument when you called me heartless.

(Note that most abortions do not even look like that)

Care to show us a picture of what most aborted babies look like?

You'll love my simple edit

Actually, your strawman was unimpressive.

Anony prefers this, after surviving abortion

Liar! where did I say that?

Deep Sight: i addressed these questions to Plaetton on another thread, but I now think this merits a thread of its own. These questions are for strict materialist atheists. To avoid all mystery, the questions are intended to contest the basis of morality of the strict materialist atheist.

1. Is it wrong or evil to kill animals and please state the reason for your answer.

2. Is it wrong or evil when animals kill other animals and please state the reason for your answer.

3. Is it wrong or evil for a cannibal to kill you for the purpose of consuming your meat as food for his sustenance.

Your answers please.

Oh, and for those whose answers do not address the questions, kindly don't bother with hand-waving and other such dismissive tactics, thanks.

Lol, nice topic. Dude, we have gist. I have been pondering this objective morality thingy for sometime, I think you'll like where my thoughts have been going.

Enigma: A woman and her ex husband had tried unsuccessfully for a child for years and the doctors told her that her chances of conceiving are very low. In fact the husband has now left her due to childnessnes. One day she is ra.ped and a few weeks later she is told that she is pregnant.

To abort or not to abort?

Not to abort. The baby is a unique human being and not the property of the parent

Deep Sight: I think he is referring to the unprofessional and quack methods obvious in the scenario.

By the way, you made me transcribe a long telephone conversation and email it to you for nothing?

My oga no vex, It was really wrong of me not to reply you. What happened was that I went cold turkey on Nairaland and everything related to it. I was getting dangerously addicted. Please forgive me.

You can start a thread on that topic here. I believe you understood my point correctly, I was only going to edit it a bit for the benefit of those to whom my point might not be clear but then I realized that some people will always deliberately misunderstand me by default so there's no real need to bother.

Feel free to post it any time so that we can discuss. By the way, I've been pondering some stuff in my mind I'd like to run through with you.

Once again, I render my sincerest apologies

Deep Sight: Honestly, I find it particularly depressing that anyone could suggest that a pregnancy which is the result of an incident of ra.pe should be kept. It is the height of barbarism, inhumanity and complete lack of empathy with fellow man. It is the most unchristian and most uncharitable suggestion I have ever come across in my life.

I say this as I vividly recall my armed-robbery experience last year, during which a newly engaged young lady was ra.ped by the armed robbers. If such were to result in pregnancy, I am appalled to think that some here would suggest or even insist that such a pregnancy should be kept by the traumatized couple. These same robbers murdered 4 people in cold blood that night, including two at the scene of the ra.pe.


Think again, Anony, think again.

May it never happen to you or one close to you before you are forced to understanding of other people's trauma.

My dear friend, I have never said that rape is not traumatic. I have only asked; Is that baby in the womb a human being? Does one person's traumatic experience justify the killing of another human being?

Logicboy03: is the baby being aborted just because of the father or that such a baby would be too traumatic for a sanne woman to raise?


One dimensional thinking when life is in 3d

Should your daughter be molested, I would like to see your stance then.......heartless dolt

thelonelyshadow: At least LogicBoy has some logic (see what i did there ) Why should the woman suffer for the crime of the man

Everyone please forgive me for what I am about to do next....

@Logicboy and thelonelyshadow,

[size=16pt]Are you really saying that I am a "heartless dolt" for saying that it is wrong for a woman to do this:[/size]

[img]http://amandakmelson.files./2013/02/aborted-baby-2.jpg[/img]


[size=16pt]Because this:[/size]

https://www.independent.co.uk/incoming/article8430245.ece/ALTERNATES/w460/baby-gt.jpg
[size=16pt]...will remind her of the ra[color=#000000]pe?[/color][/size]


Is this really your idea of 3 dimensional thinking? Judge for yourselves who the real heartless dolt is.

Logicboy03: Sad....this Nigeria!

baby in the bathroom? Kai

Nah nah nah, it is not sad at all. According to you, it is not an individual baby.

It is only a part of the woman's body she decided to leave in the bathroom. Nobody's your business

Logicboy03: is the baby being aborted just because of the father or that such a baby would be too traumatic for a sanne woman to raise?


One dimensional thinking when life is in 3d

Should your daughter be molested, I would like to see yoyr stance then.......heartless dolt

Is the baby in the womb human?

As long as the baby is human, r[color=#000000]ap[/color]e is not an excuse to kill it. Emotional answers do not count here.

thehomer: You accepted it here.

Interesting. I knew there was something fishy when you started harping on my "concession"

Let's look at what exactly I "conceded" shall we?

I'll use T to denote you and A to represent me

THEHOMER'S INITIAL CLAIM

T: The murder victim has been unjustly denied their life.

A: This assumes that the victim has a right to their life. The victim didn't bring himself to life neither does he keep himself alive. Who gives him that right? You argument is similar to a man with no previous memory waking up in a house and then claiming rights of ownership over the house just because he happened to wake up in it.

Notice in red the reasons Anony gives why he doesn't think the murder victim legitimately owns his life.
Notice Anony also uses an analogy (in green) to further express that a person does not have rights of ownership over something merely because he finds himself in possession of it.

How does Thehomer respond?

T: He has it by virtue of being human. That right can be denied with justification. Based on the reasoning you're expressing, no one has any rights to anything.

2. No it isn't because the amnesiac need better justification than simply waking up in a certain house.

Here Thehomer makes a claim (in red) that the person has a right to life just because he/she is a person. He goes further to make the jump that Anony must think that people don't have any rights to anything at all.

2. In response to Anony's analogy, Thehomer agrees that merely finding oneself in possession of something doesn't automatically justify ownership

======================================================================================================================

Here is where the fun begins:

A: Actually, [size=16pt]you have sovereign rights over things you own[/size] such as your house, your car, your clothes, your words etc.

2. but you simply woke up into life with no previous memory

(In red, bolded and enlarged) notice what Anony's claim here: YOU HAVE SOVERIEGN RIGHTS OVER THINGS YOU OWN!

Number 2 expresses it even better showing that Anony does not think that a person owns his life in the same way that merely waking up into a house does not justify ownership of the house. i.e. Merely finding oneself in possession of life does not automatically justify ownership of it

T: That is an assumption wouldn't you agree?
2.That still isn't enough justification to lay claim to a piece of property.

(in red) Thehomer asks if it an assumption that one has sovereign rights over things he owns.
2. Thehomer agrees again that one does not have rights of ownership merely by finding himself in possession of a thing

A: A properly basic one.
2. We are in agreement then because in the same way merely waking up into life does not give you justification to claim the life as your property.

(In red) Anony claims that it is a properly basic assumption that. [size=14pt]One has sovereign rights over things he owns[/size]

2. Anony affirms that he agrees with Thehomer and that the same can be applied to life: i.e. [size=13pt]A person does not own his life merely because he woke up into it.[/size]

=======================================================================================================================
Let us see how Thehomer responds

THEHOMER'S MAGIC JUMP

T: If you like. Then it is a properly basic assumption that a person has the right to their life.

2. Come on. Surely you know that life isn't property. I've shown you the difference between having a life an having a car.

(in red) Thehomer assumes the question and claims that it is properly basic. Notice that he hasn't shown that humans own their lives in any way which is exactly what he and Anony have been contesting. He just suddenly assumes it.

2. In response to Anony's argument that a person does not own a thing merely by seeing himself in possession of it (which by the way thehomer agreed to), Thehomer objects saying that life is not in the same category as a house (special pleading fallacy alert). He goes on to say that he has shown this. Don't worry we'll examine that too


How does Anony respond?

A. Lol, if you accepted mine as a properly basic assumption, then you'll have to show that human's own their life.
2.Actually, I hold a person's life isn't his property rather it is a gift since he neither created it nor can sustain it by effort. You are the one who thinks humans own their lives autonomously much like a house or a car.

(in red) Anony is amused he asks thehomer that since he agrees that people have rights over what they own, he must then show that humans do indeed own their lives. Note also that Anony gives reasons why humans cannot be said to own their lives i.e. they neither create it nor sustain it.

2.Again Anony points out that he doesn't think humans have sovereign rights over their lives and that by Thehomer claiming that it is a properly basic belief that humans own their lives, he is indeed giving the same total control to a person over his life much like a car owner has total control over his car

=======================================================================================================================
Here is where it all falls apart....


THEHOMER'S WHARGABBBL

T: I just said it was a properly basic assumption. Rejecting that means you automatically reject your own claim too.

(in red) Did he just say that rejecting his arbitrary claim that it is properly basic that a human has automatic right to life means that therefore one must reject that a person only has rights over what he owns? No he didn't. Yes He Did!

Mind you, he has not given any single reason to show that a human owns his life neither has he shown any true beliefs that depend on this properly basic belief of his. All he has done is to claim that something is properly basic out of the blue.

A: fair enough, we'll have a stalemate there.

Anony calls a stalemate: Once people start claiming arbitrarily that certain things are properly basic, discussion need not continue.

Hmmm, come to think of it; Belief in God is a properly basic belief #justsaying

How does thehomer respond?

======================================================================================================================

THEHOMER'S MAGICAL INTERGALACTIC LEAP

T: You have just conceded that Humans don't need a God to validate their lives.

Seeing as Anony has not granted God as one of his presuppositions in this thread and neither has he invoked God to validate any lives but has actually argued that the lives have no special value to start with, Anony wonders where this is coming from and so he asks.....

A: How so?

And what does Thehomer say?

=======================================================================================================================
THEHOMER'S MOMENT OF DISHONESTY

T: You accepted the notion that people have some properly basic rights.

What did Anony actually accept: It is a properly basic assumption that a person has rights over what he owns.

Not quite the same thing now is it? especially since Anony has not granted that a human owns the life he lives!

=========================================================================================================================

=========================================================================================================================

Now what does thehomer have to say in his defence?

thehomer: An argument from ignorance i.e your claim of ignorance of the destiny of children. (logical fallacy)

False accusation: A claim of ignorance is not the same as an argument from ignorance

An attempt to shift the discussion to one of biblical hermeneutics. (thread derailment)

Actually your original discussion from the onset was one of biblical hermeneutics

An attempt to ignore my clear and concise starting argument an premises in order to produce your flawed version. (thread derailment)

False again: It is not my fault that you started with faulty premises

An attempt at special pleading i.e your claim that God just had to be good. (logical fallacy)

Nonsense: It is not a special pleading where I have adequately justified my reasons

As I said: you were never interested in an honest and rational debate from the onset

thelonelyshadow: What if a woman is raped, is it then morally justified for her to abort the baby?

Is it the baby's fault that the mother was ra[color=#000000]pe[/color]d? Why should the baby pay for the sins of the father?

Ra[color=#000000]pe[/color] is unfortunate but the baby is a human life and doesn't deserve to suffer for something it didn't do.

thehomer: You accepted the notion that people have some properly basic rights.

Where? please quote in context

Asked and answered right here.

The question is whether a person has absolute rights of ownership over his life. Owning a car and owning a life may not be the same in nature but then the question really is are they the same in degrees of control? If not, does one have more rights over his car than he does his life and vice versa?

Oh yes. Sometimes blame isn't assigned at all.

after coming to the conclusion that no one need be blamed.

See my first response on this very post.

Where? please quote in context

Yet you're unable to counter them? Once again, you skip from one thing to another. You'll be needing justifications for your questions that I think are irrelevant.

And you'll also be needing justifications for your statements that I think are unsatisfactory

You said you don't see why they should be blamed not whether or not their role was important. Now can you tell me whether or not their role is important rather than shifting on to some tangent on blame?

If that doesn't tell you anything about the importance of their roles I don't know what does

thehomer: I know enough to know that being born again isn't determined by whether or not a person goes to heaven and that is enough to accuse you of committing that fallacy.

Lol, you obviously don't know. and worse still, you don't know that you don't know . . .and even much worse you don't want to know. Well....your ignorance is your right.

I said I'm not interested in playing around in those passages with you. Open another thread and I'll consider joining you and other Christians there. If Christians actually hold the view I'm presenting, then you need a better justification than merely asserting that I'm ignorant.

I don't necessarily need to. I am only interested in you understanding what you are arguing over. You have the right to choose to remain ignorant of anything you like.

And I've shown you that it is neither clear nor unambiguous because your entire premise rests on a fallacious line of reasoning. Keep in mind that you're also accusing your fellow Christians of following a straw religion.

Is the bolded an attempt at emotional blackmail? You have shown nothing

That person has looked it up in scripture and it is an accepted line of thought in Christianity.

How do you know this for sure? Why this sudden expression of blind faith?

Christians have determined what the Christian worldview is from the Bible already. I'm just showing you what they've already said. You keep accusing your fellow Christians of having "strawman worldviews" without justification. Surely you can do better than that.

And I am showing you the bible. Rejecting firsthand information in favor of secondhand sources shows that you are not really interested in truth.
It is obvious that you were never interested in honest rational discourse from the get go.

Goodbye

thehomer: Well you didn't. The fact that Nazis weren't punished for beating their prisoners to death means your analogies aren't analogous.

Here is the analogy again:
The story is about Dr Gosnell who was convicted of first degree murder for killing babies minutes after delivery.
If only he had killed them while they were yet in the womb or partially delivered, he would have been an innocent man.

I find the above story absurd. As someone put it, "It is like sentencing a Nazi soldier to prison for beating a Jew to death instead of conveniently sending him to the gas chamber as he had been trained to do.

Tell me again why the fact that Nazis weren't punished for beating their prisoners to death in real life changes the meaning of my analogy in any way.

No, as I said before, the foetus at that point can survive outside the mother.

But you said the state is interested in the fetus. When I asked why it is wrong to kill a fetus beyond the age of viability. So tell me again; Why is it wrong?

You'll have to follow the thread and the responses. You basically conceded it right at that link.

I'm afraid I really can't see whatever it is that you are seeing there.

Euthanasia is acceptable for certain cancers. If the technology to treat them were available, then it won't be acceptable.

I don't find this argument convincing however I'll let it slide as I don't want to go on a euthanasia tangent

You can say it is tautological not that it is circular reasoning. Do you expect the technology to affect a right that cannot be affected by the technology? That simply makes no sense.

Let it be noted that you still haven't validated your claim here. Presenting for comparison a more absurd version of your original claim does not validate your claim. Try again

Yet we still have premature babies being born and surprise surprise we find that the uterus is empty or evacuated after their delivery. Or do we have the hearts of premature babies stopped too?

How does this accurately respond to my post again?

She has the right to her own body. If she wants her body before the age of viability then guess what? That foetus will die.

But she doesn't have the right to her own body after the viability? Question still remains. Is she justified in killing the baby while it is within her womb after the age of viability? Feel free to keep dancing around

The mother's right continues through out her pregnancy.

Is she justified in killing the baby while it is within her womb after the age of viability?

Why don't you substitute them into my response and take a look at the idea you're presenting.

They are not the same sort of words. You provided a very vague explanation and I cleaned it up for you.

Wrong. Physicists use Newtonian theories when considering the motion of ballistic projectiles but switch to Einsteins theories when considering motion at or near the speed of light.

A classic example of using the best tools for the job.

Wrong this analogy doesn't match as they are not describing the exact same phenomenon from two points of view

What do you think a demonstration that you've committed the slippery slope fallacy would look like? That reference link I provided gave you the exposition of the fallacy and I gave you a concise summary of it.
I'm sorry but if you've read my response and read that reference link but still cannot see that you've presented a textbook case of the slippery slope fallacy, then I really cannot help you. I can only recommend that you try to get the necessary background knowledge on how to avoid such fallacious lines of though.

How about you take it step by step and carefully explain why my argument in particular commits the slippery slope fallacy.
What you have done is no different from if I claimed that you have commited the ad hominem fallacy then I just post a link. . .and when you ask me to demonstrate it, I claim it some more.

Oh I just wanted you to clarify that even if the baby would die 12 hours after the delivery, you would still want the mother to go through all the risks of pregnancy just to satisfy your ideas.

How exactly do they know for sure that the baby will die 12 hours after delivery? Mind you they have to have this knowledge before the age of viability because if not, she has birth as an option. And also, if I knew my 1 year old baby will die in the next 12 hours, am I justified if I kill her now?

Wrong. He would have still been guilty of many other crimes including the point I've been making which is that based on the age of viability.

What exactly will he be guilty of?

thehomer: What is your own point of reference? And how have you evaluated whether or not it is objectively good or evil? You've come a long way with all the leeway you've been given yet you're unable to answer the basic questions in the OP.

When you ask me a clear question I will answer. So far your op remains unclarified. I won't let you off the hook, if you cannot say what "good" is, you lack the right to condemn anything much less God.

thehomer: Just so you know, my points of reference are on the effects of Gods actions on humans at the very least. In fact, that much was made clear in my OP here.

Edit: What is your own point of reference?

Lol, first I'll ask if an action's morality is based on it's intent or is it based on it's effect? Second I'll ask for an objective moral standard by which you evaluate the goodness of the action i.e. is the effect objectively good or evil, is the intent objectively good or evil?

As long as you keep shying away from defining an objective moral standard, we have nothing to work with.