Okay, Parrot…thanks for that.
Even if you are correct here…still no killing.You can see the fleshing out of this argument in previous posts. I will summarize it here:
People who suggest birth controls to be a clean way of controlling the population that doesn't involve killing are living in a dream world. People have a natural desire to reproduce. It is as natural as breathing and eating. No matter what law you pass or education about birth controls you put out, not matter how you color it to look like the 'right' thing to do, there will be two problems:
1) Those that rebel and want to have kids anyway.
2) Those who screwed up using the some birth control method and the result was a pregnancy anyway.
Are you talking about a zygote or fetus?In either case you now have a human life.
Either can become a human life. Neither is.
And egg…is not a chicken. If you ordered a chicken dinner and they brought you an omelet, you would not accept it.
It is a zygote or fetus. It is no more “alive” than a tumor.It is alive. It is growing. You are now faced with the prospect of what to do in order to terminate this pregnancy by force. This means killing that life, even if the mother wants the child. PoliTalker was making the argument that this would be part of a government law. I was pointing out that supporting such a government does not wash one's hands of what is being done here.
This argument sounds very religiously motivated to me. All of your arguments sound that way. If they are, please let me know they are.
Horse shit. Population control is about population control. No killing needed at all.Population controls is about killing for force, all to satisfy a perceived need to 'save the planet' or 'to bring balance'.
C’mon, Parrot. Let’s be real here.It is the very reasoning every destructive dictatorship in the world uses to commit genocide.
He has not decided to ban you for any of those reasons. He would debate them and you from here to eternity.PoliTalker takes offense at this. He refuses to look at the ramifications of what he is condoning. It makes him uncomfortable to deal with these questions I bring up. Thus, he has decided to 'ban' me. True, he won't let me into any threads he starts from here on, but that still does not stop anyone from starting parallel threads to discuss what he happens to discuss at the moment. He really only locks himself out, since he is no longer able to see and participate in a conversation that he has on his ignore list.
He banned you for the personal stuff.
I am not bothered by that. If you act like an asshole to me…I will call you an asshole. (Probably I’d call you a fucking asshole.)
He CAN ban you from this thread if he wants.I am already on this thread. He can't banish me from this thread. There is no need for a parallel thread in this case.
Retro banning is allowed in this forum. All he needs do is notify a moderator to retro ban you...and you will be banned instantly. He is simply putting you on ignore. You are free to contribute…which you are doing.
Thank you for sharing the reasons for YOUR ban list.When it comes to ignore lists, the only people that get on mine are those that are not presenting any argument or counter-argument. There ARE those trolls that simply like to throw insults, redirect a conversation into trivial areas, play spelling and grammar cop, etc., and contribute nothing to a debate. I lose nothing by ignoring them. They are presenting no arguments in the first place. That is the end of that digression.
Poli’s reasons are different.
Mine are different from Poli's...and from yours.
Ummm…I doubt you truly are not dealing with this from a religious standpoint.I am not making my arguments from a religious standpoint. I am making my arguments from the standpoint of human nature. People want to reproduce. They may justify that for religious reasons, but that doesn't change their desire. There will be the rebellious, and there will be accidents with contraceptives. The only way to deal with that is to kill.
We’ll continue to discuss this, but I am convinced your arguments are PRIMARILY motivated by religious considerations. There is absolutely nothing I see in human nature to sustain your arguments at all.
I strongly advocate for a woman’s right to abort a pregnancy occurring in her own body for whatever reasons she deems appropriate…and that includes a desire to lower the human population. I see nothing wrong with governments attempting to lower rising population…or with attempting to lower it...by influencing less procreation.
ASIDE: For the record, I was raised a Catholic…and am now what would be regarded as an agnostic. My agnosticism is:
I do not know if gods exist or not;
I see no reason to suspect gods CANNOT EXIST...that the existence of gods is impossible;
I see no reason to suspect that gods MUST EXIST...that gods are needed to explain existence;
I do not see enough unambiguous evidence upon which to base a meaningful guess in either direction...
...so I don't.
What is your position on the religious continuum?
I strongly suspect it is the PRIMARY motivation for you thesis.
Bookmarks