The Kids are Doing Alright: The Culture War is Over

RStringfield said:
You stated the exact opposite? Keep abortions legal and outlaw fertility clinics???

I never argued life has no value. A brain dead person is not "alive" in the sense that we mean of a life with moral value and worthy of state protection. Biology proves they are alive in some sense, but not with the traits we look for in a moral agent, e.g., conscious of themselves and their surroundings. They are dead, legally, medically and morally.

Technology will continue to raise tough moral questions. We will find no good answer in the morality tales of ancient books, that dealt with questions that faced people over 2000 years ago, like whether you should work your donkey 7 days a week. Most of it's stories are of little use, even on this topic. Should we be killing the Onan's of the world? Of course, not.

In fact, the Bible, through Christ, told you not to obsess on those tales and instead to focus on love. But, you refuse and instead look for any tenuous reason you can to hate. It's the spirit that you were supposed to learn, not the letter.
Click to expand...

yes, the opposite....are you denying that I specifically stated in this thread that I had dealt with the issue of in vitro fertilization in real life and had chosen to avoid that path because I did not believe it right to create life with the intent to destroy it?......that was thirty years ago and science has improved.....it is not necessary to operate fertility clinics in a manner which intends to destroy life.....you choose to ignore that and raise irrelevant arguments.....

and if your argument is that the Christian teachings of love lead to the conclusion that we must kill our unborn children you're more fucked up than I previously believed.....
 
Southern Man said:
Read back to Socteaser's post 309, Dick. The 1.5% is the babies over 24 weeks gestation. Yeah I'm sure some of these are retards like you, but that's leaves a shitload more that are not.
Click to expand...

I read back. I am sure some of them were not necessary. We could prevent them, but not with a starting point that demands they all must be equal to that of a fertilized egg.
 
PostmodernProphet said:
yes, the opposite....are you denying that I specifically stated in this thread that I had dealt with the issue of in vitro fertilization in real life and had chosen to avoid that path because I did not believe it right to create life with the intent to destroy it?......that was thirty years ago and science has improved.....it is not necessary to operate fertility clinics in a manner which intends to destroy life.....you choose to ignore that and raise irrelevant arguments.....

and if your argument is that the Christian teachings of love lead to the conclusion that we must kill our unborn children you're more fucked up than I previously believed.....
Click to expand...

It is highly relevant. Either a fertilized egg is equivalent to a baby or not. You cannot argue that the fertilized egg is equal to a baby in one case and not in the other.

There is, currently, no way to avoid the fact that most of the fertilized eggs created, in vitro, will die. Most of the ones used will die. It does not matter if they freeze the surplus, which kills many of them and there will inevitably be failures in any system for preserving them. A couple's desire to have a child no more justifies killing multiple "babies" than a woman's desire not to have a child justifies killing a baby.

If these are babies then the whole ivf industry would have to be shutdown as it would be nothing but a slaughterhouse where multiple "babies" are killed, without just cause.

YOU ARE THE ONE ARGUING THAT IT IS OKAY TO KILL BABIES. You argue it based on your stupid definition of a baby, but apply it unequally. In your fucked up view, it's okay to kill some babies, but not others and it is all dependent on whether their parents do what you want. My position, which is obviously true, is they are not babies.

Are you ready to move on to the death trap's of women with partial hysterectomies?
 
Last edited:
Damocles said:
He also said that he had no problem making such abortions illegal. I'm not sure what your point is on this one.
Click to expand...

The point is obvious. He wishes to create a straw man and a very ugly one, to make it seem as if that is what pro-choice must mean, in all cases. They need you to accept their stereotype of a filthy whore who got pregnant, waited around carelessly procrastinating and then decided to pay some evil doctor (probably one with a big nose) who fiendishly kills the unborn child at the last possible moment. Afterwords, she immediately goes out and has unprotected sex, maybe with the big nose doctor, and does it all over again.

If you don't accept that straw man then you will not ignore the problems and horror stories that result from their absurd position that life worthy of state protection, begins at conception and that the mother is not worthy of state protection or concern for her equal rights.

Of course, the horror story is possible and maybe it happens, who knows how often. It cannot be ignored anymore than we can ignore the problems of the flip side as they wish to do.
 
RStringfield said:
I read back. I am sure some of them were not necessary. We could prevent them, but not with a starting point that demands they all must be equal to that of a fertilized egg.
Click to expand...
So you agree that they weren't necessary yet you still want to kill them. Why do you hate babies? Did one pee on your dress shoes or something?
 
RStringfield said:
The point is obvious. He wishes to create a straw man and a very ugly one, to make it seem as if that is what pro-choice must mean, in all cases. They need you to accept their stereotype of a filthy whore who got pregnant, waited around carelessly procrastinating and then decided to pay some evil doctor (probably one with a big nose) who fiendishly kills the unborn child at the last possible moment. Afterwords, she immediately goes out and has unprotected sex, maybe with the big nose doctor, and does it all over again.

If you don't accept that straw man then you will not ignore the problems and horror stories that result from their absurd position that life worthy of state protection, begins at conception and that the mother is not worthy of state protection or concern for her equal rights.

Of course, the horror story is possible and maybe it happens, who knows how often. It cannot be ignored anymore than we can ignore the problems of the flip side as they wish to do.
Click to expand...

Wow how to cut down Jews and women in one post, along with murdering babies. Dick. :good4u:
 
Southern Man said:
So you agree that they weren't necessary yet you still want to kill them. Why do you hate babies? Did one pee on your dress shoes or something?
Click to expand...

Either you are stupid or you are being dishonest. I agreed, that it is likely, that some were not necessary. I am sure some were. How many of each, I don't have enough information. I would guess most were necessary because I don't have to vilify the participants like you. I can imagine that the participants are like everybody else, mostly good people that are faced with hard choices.

I don't support on demand abortion after the brain is sufficiently functioning. That's a house, in my book, even if the roof aint on yet. I would demand that they have a legal avenue open to them, if the pregnancy were a serious threat to the mother or if medical conditions in the child made it apparent that the brain was not functioning. That is, there needs to be a way for them to seek exceptions to the laws and it must act with haste.

But we can't get to that when you demand an irrational principle be built into the law, i.e., that the right to life begins at conception. Why won't you join us in forming a rational principle that balances the interest of the mother and child? Why do you hate babies?
 
Southern Man said:
Wow how to cut down Jews and women in one post, along with murdering babies. Dick. :good4u:
Click to expand...

That is a characterization of your positions, not mine. It is accurate to the arguments of pro lifers. The doctors are characterized as money grubbers, the women as whores. I don't believe in either of those characterizations as I have clearly noted.

You are free to explain why it is that you insist on ignoring that soc, generally, opposes PBAs. Why do you need to build the straw man?
 
AssHatZombie said:
But your solution is dehumanizing them all. It;s not better.
Click to expand...

THAT IS NOT MY SOLUTION. A fertilized egg is not a baby. It is not a moral agent. It simply has not yet attained the qualities that are needed for rights, including the right to life. It is no more human than the brain dead and no more entitled to a right to life.

this is an arbitrary word game, a distinction without a difference.
Click to expand...

BULL-FUCKING-SHIT. There are clear differences and they have been noted throughout. The distinction you "baby" killers make is in the parents alone and is extremely trivial.
 
RStringfield said:
THAT IS NOT MY SOLUTION. A fertilized egg is not a baby. It is not a moral agent. It simply has not yet attained the qualities that are needed for rights, including the right to life. It is no more human than the brain dead and no more entitled to a right to life.



BULL-FUCKING-SHIT. There are clear differences and they have been noted throughout. The distinction you "baby" killers make is in the parents alone and is extremely trivial.
Click to expand...

Moral agency is just yet another bullshit made up criterion. a two year old doesn't have moral agency either.
 
Southern Man said:
You are both, and continue to mis-represent my position, even though I schooled you on it directly:
Click to expand...

When? Where? Where is one post that explains why it is you need to misrepresent the position of myself or soc's position? Where is the post that details you position? I have posted 100s of them going over it and over it again, and yet you still lie and misrepresent it.

Why do you hate babies?
Click to expand...

I love them all, even the ones born to homosexuals and regardless of how they are created.

Why do you hate "babies" (using your definition of the word or mine)?
 
RStringfield said:
When? Where? Where is one post that explains why it is you need to misrepresent the position of myself or soc's position? Where is the post that details you position? I have posted 100s of them going over it and over it again, and yet you still lie and misrepresent it.



I love them all, even the ones born to homosexuals and regardless of how they are created.

Why do you hate "babies" (using your definition of the word or mine)?
Click to expand...
Now you're being a retard instead of just a dick, Dick. Not only did I link to where I specifically stated my position, but repeated it here for you.

Why do you want to kill babies?
 
RStringfield said:
It is highly relevant. Either a fertilized egg is equivalent to a baby or not. You cannot argue that the fertilized egg is equal to a baby in one case and not in the other.
Click to expand...
but why can I not say I am opposed to the killing of unborn children in either event?......

There is, currently, no way to avoid the fact that most of the fertilized eggs created, in vitro, will die.
Click to expand...
actually, there is, but in any event, why are you blaming me for creating those fertilized eggs......not only are none of them mine, I was opposed to them being created in the first place.....

Most of the ones used will die. It does not matter if they freeze the surplus, which kills many of them and there will inevitably be failures in any system for preserving them. A couple's desire to have a child no more justifies killing multiple "babies" than a woman's desire not to have a child justifies killing a baby.
Click to expand...
I agree....but what is your point?....

If these are babies then the whole ivf industry would have to be shutdown as it would be nothing but a slaughterhouse where multiple "babies" are killed, without just cause.
Click to expand...
no, it could be operated in a way which did not result in the death of multiple children.....

YOU ARE THE ONE ARGUING THAT IT IS OKAY TO KILL BABIES. You argue it based on your stupid definition of a baby, but apply it unequally. In your fucked up view, it's okay to kill some babies, but not others and it is all dependent on whether their parents do what you want. My position, which is obviously true, is they are not babies.
Click to expand...

since I have never said it was okay to kill babies you've obviously made an error somewhere.......since your position denies the scientific fact that what you are trying to kill is an unborn human child it is ridiculous for you to proclaim that your position is "obviously true"......you desire to kill unborn human children, there's no reason for you deny what IS in fact obvious....


Are you ready to move on to the death trap's of women with partial hysterectomies?
Click to expand...

you can move anywhere you want, but you ought to at least concede your failures to this point......
 
AssHatZombie said:
Here we have the actual truth, ladies and gentlemen. Stringfield hates families.

Now who's denigrating a woman's choice?
Click to expand...

Cite the post where I said that you dishonest hack. But it demonstrates your true concern, which is controlling the choices of the parents.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top