The Kids are Doing Alright: The Culture War is Over

[PostmodernProphet]

pmp your argument is that the life of the fertilized egg is of no value so long as the woman is trying to achieve pregnancy. In your opinion, they can kill a dozen or as many as they want just so some infertile couple can achieve pregnancy. Yet you rush to these "babies" defense to stop some girl from aborting, because she chose to have sex and can not be allowed to play God, i.e., control her body. It's absurd and highly hypocritical.

is this something you wish I believed so you had an argument to raise?.......unfortunately for you, I've already stated the exact opposite on several occasions, so your attempt to mischaracterize what I believe falls flat on it's face......you are the one that claims life has no value, not me......

 

[apple0154]

Im not sure insisting all babies be dehumanized just to be CONSISTENT is the right solution, however.

Consistency is vital. That is what lies at the very core of our society. It's the foundation of equal justice, equal rights, our laws and customs and beliefs.

The problem is classifying embryos/zygotes/fetuses as babies when they are not babies and that results in consistency being impossible. From a woman's kidney automatically taking precedence over the life of the fetus to saying a fertilized egg is a human being depending on where it's located (if it's not attached to the uterus it's not a pregnancy) to IVF where multiple life is created knowing the majority will die.....each of those scenarios make a mockery of what it means to be a human being.

We've fought for years to eliminate discrimination, to remove "exceptions", to guarantee every human being is equal. If we subjected any other group of human beings to any of the exceptions people want to apply to embryos/zygotes/fetuses there would be a revolution!

If common sense does not tell us embryos/zygotes/fetuses are not human beings then the exceptions necessary in order to have them classified as human beings definitely does.

Just the first one, the health of the mother taking precedence over the life of the fetus, goes against everything our society stands for and that is we are all equal. To say the health of one group of persons is more important than the lives of another group of persons is, in our society, vile, disgusting and completely unacceptable.

Of course such is not the case because embryos/zygotes/fetuses are not persons. They are not human beings. They are embryos, zygotes and fetuses.

 

[Sammy Jankis]

Consistency is vital. That is what lies at the very core of our society. It's the foundation of equal justice, equal rights, our laws and customs and beliefs.

The problem is classifying embryos/zygotes/fetuses as babies when they are not babies and that results in consistency being impossible. From a woman's kidney automatically taking precedence over the life of the fetus to saying a fertilized egg is a human being depending on where it's located (if it's not attached to the uterus it's not a pregnancy) to IVF where multiple life is created knowing the majority will die.....each of those scenarios make a mockery of what it means to be a human being.

We've fought for years to eliminate discrimination, to remove "exceptions", to guarantee every human being is equal. If we subjected any other group of human beings to any of the exceptions people want to apply to embryos/zygotes/fetuses there would be a revolution!

If common sense does not tell us embryos/zygotes/fetuses are not human beings then the exceptions necessary in order to have them classified as human beings definitely does.

Just the first one, the health of the mother taking precedence over the life of the fetus, goes against everything our society stands for and that is we are all equal. To say the health of one group of persons is more important than the lives of another group of persons is, in our society, vile, disgusting and completely unacceptable.

Of course such is not the case because embryos/zygotes/fetuses are not persons. They are not human beings. They are embryos, zygotes and fetuses.

But embryos zygotes and fetuses are all human beings.

A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of a small mind.

 

[Timshel]

is this something you wish I believed so you had an argument to raise?.......unfortunately for you, I've already stated the exact opposite on several occasions, so your attempt to mischaracterize what I believe falls flat on it's face......you are the one that claims life has no value, not me......

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.

 

[Sammy Jankis]

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, i.e., 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.

Moral value? It's your hateful foolish consistency which declares all babies must be dehumanized if abortion is to be legal. that's your wish.

 

[Sammy Jankis]

this is not about about a love of consistency, its about finding a way to dehumanize all babies.

 

[Timshel]

But embryos zygotes and fetuses are all human beings.

A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of a small mind.

That is nothing but a catchphrase, which you misuse. There is nothing FOOLISH about consistency in the law, i.e., due process and equal protection of the law. It is a principle that has proven it's wisdom over and over again. Inconsistency in the law, is the hobgoblin of a tyrannical state that discriminates unjustly. It leads to perversity in application of the laws.

Punish, the poor girl who kills to avoid the dangers of pregnancy, but not that rich couple who kill to achieve offspring. There is no sense or logic in that. It is based solely on stereotypes. Either it is a life that is worthy of full and equal state protection, or it is not. Picking and choosing on this important issue without some general principle is a horrible idea.

A brain dead person is a human being. It no longer enjoys the right to life.

 

[Sammy Jankis]

That is nothing but a catchphrase, which you misuse. There is nothing FOOLISH about consistency in the law, i.e., due process and equal protection of the law. It is a principle that has proven it's wisdom over and over again. Inconsistency in the law, is the hobgoblin of a tyrannical state that discriminates unjustly. It leads to perversity in application of the laws.

Punish, the poor girl who kills to avoid the dangers of pregnancy, but not that rich couple who kill to achieve offspring. There is no sense or logic in that. It is based solely on stereotypes. Either it is a life that is worthy of full and equal state protection, or it is not. Picking and choosing on this important issue without some general principle is a horrible idea.

A brain dead person is a human being. It no longer enjoys the right to life.

No. Your catch thinking is that the law represents a different reality.

 

[Timshel]

Moral value? It's your hateful foolish consistency which declares all babies must be dehumanized if abortion is to be legal. that's your wish.

STFU about your misuse of out of context quote. Emerson did not mean what you imply, retard.

Nope. Not all babies. Once they have the slightest capacity to be a moral agent they enjoy a right to life. Once it is lost, so are their rights.

You want to pick and choose, which would probably be attractive to an idiot racist that believes there are billion reasons to discriminate and none of them too trivial.

 

[Sammy Jankis]

STFU about your misuse of out of context quote. Emerson did not mean what you imply, retard.

Nope. Not all babies. Once they have the slightest capacity to be a moral agent they enjoy a right to life. Once it is lost, so are their rights.

You want to pick and choose, which would probably be attractive to an idiot racist that believes there are billion reasons to discriminate and none of them too trivial.

Eat a fat shit sandwich, nazi baby eugenics dehumanizer. YOUR decisions on when something enjoys rights is your arbitrary decision.

A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of a small mind. small minds like stringfields.

 

[Timshel]

Here is Emerson in context. He is talking about foolish adherence to tradition and past authority, for the sake of adherence to tradition and past authority. To whom does that apply?

But why should you keep your head over your shoulder? Why drag about this corpse of your memory, lest you contradict somewhat you have stated in this or that public place? Suppose you should contradict yourself; what then? It seems to be a rule of wisdom never to rely on your memory alone, scarcely even in acts of pure memory, but to bring the past for judgment into the thousand-eyed present, and live ever in a new day. In your metaphysics you have denied personality to the Deity: yet when the devout motions of the soul come, yield to them heart and life, though they should clothe God with shape and color. Leave your theory, as Joseph his coat in the hand of the harlot, and flee.

A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines. With consistency a great soul has simply nothing to do. He may as well concern himself with his shadow on the wall. Speak what you think now in hard words, and to-morrow speak what to-morrow thinks in hard words again, though it contradict every thing you said to-day. — ‘Ah, so you shall be sure to be misunderstood.’ — Is it so bad, then, to be misunderstood? Pythagoras was misunderstood, and Socrates, and Jesus, and Luther, and Copernicus, and Galileo, and Newton, and every pure and wise spirit that ever took flesh. To be great is to be misunderstood. Self Reliance

 

[Sammy Jankis]

Here is Emerson in context. He is talking about foolish adherence to tradition and past authority, for the sake of adherence to tradition and past authority. To whom does that apply?

But why should you keep your head over your shoulder? Why drag about this corpse of your memory, lest you contradict somewhat you have stated in this or that public place? Suppose you should contradict yourself; what then? It seems to be a rule of wisdom never to rely on your memory alone, scarcely even in acts of pure memory, but to bring the past for judgment into the thousand-eyed present, and live ever in a new day. In your metaphysics you have denied personality to the Deity: yet when the devout motions of the soul come, yield to them heart and life, though they should clothe God with shape and color. Leave your theory, as Joseph his coat in the hand of the harlot, and flee.

A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines. With consistency a great soul has simply nothing to do. He may as well concern himself with his shadow on the wall. Speak what you think now in hard words, and to-morrow speak what to-morrow thinks in hard words again, though it contradict every thing you said to-day. — ‘Ah, so you shall be sure to be misunderstood.’ — Is it so bad, then, to be misunderstood? Pythagoras was misunderstood, and Socrates, and Jesus, and Luther, and Copernicus, and Galileo, and Newton, and every pure and wise spirit that ever took flesh. To be great is to be misunderstood. Self Reliance

yes. there is no older and more authoritarian tradition than the concept of laws being consistently applied rules for the land.

 

[Timshel]

Considering Emerson's sage advice, should we think about abortion and the other problems that technology brings by referencing some ancient morality tales or should we consider them in today's light (the thousand eyed present).

 

[Timshel]

yes. there is no older and more authoritarian tradition than the concept of laws being consistently applied rules for the land.

LOL. Due process and equality before the law are not the tools of tyrants, you idiot.

 

[Timshel]

All Emerson was saying was to constantly check and recheck your assumptions as new information is revealed. He was not arguing that the state should apply laws in a willy-nilly fashion, where they will certainly become tools of discrimination based on the hatred of small minds.

 

[DamnYankee]

Socteaser:

1.5% of a very large number is still a lot of skulls being crushed and brains sucked out. Why do you hate babies?

bump

 

[Timshel]

1.5% of a very large number is still a lot of skulls being crushed and brains sucked out. Why do you hate babies?

And none of them were medically necessary? If you'd come to a sensible position on this you might find agreement on attempting to limit or regulate those abortions. As long as you hold to the silly idea that a fertilized egg is a baby, you will get nowhere.

 

[Sammy Jankis]

All Emerson was saying was to constantly check and recheck your assumptions as new information is revealed. He was not arguing that the state should apply laws in a willy-nilly fashion, where they will certainly become tools of discrimination based on the hatred of small minds.

It's not willy nilly to accept that we kill babies, as a society. It's the truth.

it's your need to whitewash our reality that is your sick compulsion.

You seek this social denial because you want MORE dehumanization, and more "dark ages" reproductive ignorance.

 

[DamnYankee]

And none of them were medically necessary? If you'd come to a sensible position on this you might find agreement on attempting to limit or regulate those abortions. As long as you hold to the silly idea that a fertilized egg is a baby, you will get nowhere.

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.

 

[Damocles]

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.

He also said that he had no problem making such abortions illegal. I'm not sure what your point is on this one.