View Full Version : liberal logic at its best
If I could only have one shot at explaining the problem with liberals:
http://therighttobear.com/gloria-steinem-is-a-gun-grabbing-genius/?utm_source=140518RTB&utm_campaign=140518RTB
BoringGuy45
05-18-14, 10:41
The statist progressives are essentially sociopaths that have the same mentality of both a totalitarian tyrant and a serial killer. They have no empathy, no morality, and every person they meet they see as nothing more than a target to exploit. They care nothing for children; they see them as nothing more than a playing piece in their games. They will fight to save children to advance themselves, and they will just as quickly kill a child to advance themselves.
MountainRaven
05-18-14, 11:54
"If banning guns and ammunition can save just one child, then we should strongly consider it."
And if making all guns - including those currently regulated by NFA - legal to buy over the counter with no background check and no 4473 can save just one child, we should strongly consider it, too.
If I could only have one shot at explaining the problem with liberals:
http://therighttobear.com/gloria-steinem-is-a-gun-grabbing-genius/?utm_source=140518RTB&utm_campaign=140518RTB
Meh, attempting to mix issues in that manner is nothing but self defeating to the 2A cause. Not all "liberals" are anti gun and lumping in abortion like that as an emotional bait a bad idea. By attempting to overlap issues (abortion and 2A Rights in this case) and more likely to push those on the fence say of 2A issues toward against when they think those who support 2A issues are all of the "God, Guns, anti abortion" position as that page gives the impression.
Yes, Steinem is a whack job who's delusional and totally out of touch with reality, that goes without saying, but I don't think that page helps the cause in any way. It also leaves a lot of people with more of a Libertarian leaning (myself included) alienated as they are often pro choice and understand the importance of 2A issues. Delusional seemingly hypocritical thinking not remotely the exclusive territory of the "liberal"
That page simply reminded me of how little I think of Steinem and how little I often have in common with many I share the 2A support
So if somebody shot Steinem before she was pregnant and had an abortion would that have saved one child?
Seems as reasonable as her twisted logic.
There is actually a reason why those in office, in the media, and on the courts, who deny the right to keep and bear arms also deny the right to life, and that is simply because they are being philosophically consistent. Many gun owners might cringe at the bringing the two issues together, but in fact they are the same issue, and I have noticed that most of these gun owners and the gun grabbers in fact actually share a fundamental ideological view about gun ownership, namely that there is in fact no metaphysical First Principle establishing any natural law right to keep and bear arms. And this is important to keep in mind. The sad and tragic fact of the matter is that many gun owners simply and completely flat out reject the view of our Founding Fathers that the right to keep and bear arms and the right to life, both come from the hand of our Creator.
This in fact was the reason Thomas Jefferson attempted to warn us.
"God who gave us life gave us liberty. And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are of the Gift of God?"
And why John Adams stated,
"Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."
Their point? Once a people stop believing that their rights come from the hand of God, then it becomes rather easy to deny those people their God given rights, (i.e. the right to keep and bear arms, the right to life, the right to free speech, etc.) and to simply invent new so-called "rights" (i.e. abortion, homosexual "marriage", hate speech, etc.).
Well said Belloc. The two issues are the same, right to life and the duty to protect innocent life. What sense does it make to say some have the right to protect themselves when others are slaughtered without any right recognized?
Well said Belloc. The two issues are the same, right to life and the duty to protect innocent life. What sense does it make to say some have the right to protect themselves when others are slaughtered without any right recognized?
Exactly. And the 'divide-and-conquer' tactic of the liberal "progressives" (both democrat and republicans) has been successful beyond their wildest dreams. They have very easily convinced many (including many gun owners) that the right to life, the right to private property, the right to keep and bear arms, the right to free speech, the right to worship, the right to assemble and to freedom of association, etc, are not in fact all the same philosophical and even metaphysical struggle for freedom and liberty.
And thus why I keep repeating that the one and only road back to greater freedom and liberty is to tear down and smash into dust every single last brick and stone in the repugnant ideological wall of these miscreants. http://i1328.photobucket.com/albums/w522/mtjh45/5a884389007feaa07dbc860ddb1cd884_zps23d38c9a.jpeg (http://s1328.photobucket.com/user/mtjh45/media/5a884389007feaa07dbc860ddb1cd884_zps23d38c9a.jpeg.html)
Shoulderthinggoesup
05-18-14, 14:34
This thread promises to be a festival of hyperbole where everyone gets accused of hating babies and freedom. I might suggest that if everyone took the time to understand their political opponent's point of view, they might find they make much more effective arguments against them. Take a lesson from how ineffective the anti-gun crowd is with their hyperbolic hand wringing.
Sent from my PC36100 using Tapatalk 2
MountainRaven
05-18-14, 14:50
I guess I must hate babies because of my deep and abiding love for freedom.
Yay, this went sideways real fast.
My philosophical consistency is being left alone: You leave me alone, I'll leave you alone.
"Conservative" logic is to make women carry their children to term and then complain about single mothers raising a half-dozen children on their own, each with a different father. To use the power of government to force women to bring children into this world, and then complain when that same government forces them to help pay to raise those children.
Meh, attempting to mix issues in that manner is nothing but self defeating to the 2A cause. Not all "liberals" are anti gun and lumping in abortion like that as an emotional bait a bad idea. By attempting to overlap issues (abortion and 2A Rights in this case) and more likely to push those on the fence say of 2A issues toward against when they think those who support 2A issues are all of the "God, Guns, anti abortion" position was that page gives the impression.
Yes, Steinem is a whack job who's delusional and totally out of touch with reality, that goes without saying, but I don't think that page helps the cause in any way. It also leaves a lot of people with more of a Libertarian leaning (myself included) alienated as they are often pro choice and understand the importance of 2A issues. Delusional seemingly hypocritical thinking not remotely the exclusive territory of the "liberal"
That page simply reminded me of how little I think of Steinem and how little I often have in common with many I share the 2A support
Will, the point was neither to connect the two nor to use in a 2A argument. I was merely thinking that the "ad" showed how there is a complete lack of cohesion and thought in the liberal camp
MountainRaven
05-18-14, 14:59
Will, the point was neither to connect the two nor to use in a 2A argument. I was merely thinking that the "ad" showed how there is a complete lack of cohesion and thought in the liberal camp
I, for one, appreciate the irony. Especially if she was wearing that shirt when she said it.
Even if I don't agree with any form of anti-choice.
Abortion as a form of birth control has the same premise as slavery. First, declare a segment of society as less than human to justify enslaving, controling and killing them with impunity.
The idea of not allowing abortion as a form of birth control isn't about forcing women to bring to term babies into single parent households, it's to make people realize there are consequences to choices. If a woman gets pregnant, the father and mother are expected to step up and fulfill their obligations to that child. If they are not ready to step up to those obligations, they should not engage in behavior that will bring those obligations. (Note that expecting the father and mother to step up does not mean we expect them to do so without help or guidance.)
If we support the philosophy that someone illegally breaking into another's home should face the consequences of their actions, including accepting the homeowner has the right to self defense, how can we accept that abortion as a form of birth control should be a right?
Will, the point was neither to connect the two nor to use in a 2A argument. I was merely thinking that the "ad" showed how there is a complete lack of cohesion and thought in the liberal camp
That's an ad put together by Steinem? I believe It's a picture they - from that web site or someone of similar mind - put together of a pic of her wearing that shirt and quoting her on guns, in an attempt to link the two issues together as "liberal thinking". If it's as ad by Steinem's side, it's pretty damn stupid, but I don't think that's case is it? The point of who ever put that together was to connect those issues, be it her side or other. That's a lose lose to me, regardless of who actually did it.
If it's an ad made by Steinem, then she's even dumber than I thought.
I guess I must hate babies because of my deep and abiding love for freedom.
Yay, this went sideways real fast.
My philosophical consistency is being left alone: You leave me alone, I'll leave you alone.
"Conservative" logic is to make women carry their children to term and then complain about single mothers raising a half-dozen children on their own, each with a different father. To use the power of government to force women to bring children into this world, and then complain when that same government forces them to help pay to raise those children.
Indeed. As I said, delusional seemingly hypocritical thinking not remotely the exclusive territory of the "liberal"
Oh well, I can see this thread going down hill like a flaming turd real fast.
I guess I must hate babies because of my deep and abiding love for freedom.
Yay, this went sideways real fast.
My philosophical consistency is being left alone: You leave me alone, I'll leave you alone.
"Conservative" logic is to make women carry their children to term and then complain about single mothers raising a half-dozen children on their own, each with a different father. To use the power of government to force women to bring children into this world, and then complain when that same government forces them to help pay to raise those children.
Yes, you are right, they are in fact children, i.e. fellow human beings with the same right to life that you claim. What is interesting is that you are basically restating the position of Stephen Douglas who when debating Lincoln concerning the later's opposition to slavery said:
“I do not discuss the morals of the people favoring slavery, but let them settle that matter for themselves. I hold that the people who favor slavery are civilized, that they bear consciences, and that they are accountable to God and their posterity and not to us. It is for them to decide therefore the moral and religious right of the slavery question for themselves within their own limits.”
Just substitute the word abortion every place the word slavery appears, and this statement perfectly defines the pro-choice position in America today.
Lincoln’s response to Douglas’ pro-choice position on slavery was, “He cannot say that he would as soon see a wrong voted up as voted down. When Judge Douglas says whoever, or whatever community, wants slaves, they have a right to them, he is perfectly logical if there is nothing wrong in the institution; but if you admit that it is wrong, he cannot logically say that anybody has a right to do a wrong.”
http://www.deathroe.com/pro-life_answers/Answers.cfm?ID=1
Indeed. As I said, delusional seemingly hypocritical thinking not remotely the exclusive territory of the "liberal"
Oh well, I can see this thread going down hill like a flaming turd real fast.
I see this often here, especially when the self appointed knights of Christ swoop in, change the subject to religion, and shove their beliefs into every orifice under the guise of "salvation".
Yeah, liberals hate freedom, real bad. Now if we could just live by the bible whew boys would we be blessed with true freedom as THE LORD GOD AND SAVIOR BABY JESUS WANTS FOR YOUUUUUU (see how crazy it looks when someone types like that?). As long as the freedom you want isn't to do things like have sex without being married, raise children without paying the church to baptize them, be gay without the fear of being stoned to death, or end a pregnancy that was never sought out/would place the other children or mother in danger/would not be sustainable. Then you're a sinner and need to have a flaming tire placed around your neck.
But other than that, shit man. God wants you to be free.
Because why accept personal responsibility on a human and individual level? That's nonsense.
Abortion as a form of birth control has the same premise as slavery. First, declare a segment of society as less than human to justify enslaving, controling and killing them with impunity.
The idea of not allowing abortion as a form of birth control isn't about forcing women to bring to term babies into single parent households, it's to make people realize there are consequences to choices. If a woman gets pregnant, the father and mother are expected to step up and fulfill their obligations to that child. If they are not ready to step up to those obligations, they should not engage in behavior that will bring those obligations. (Note that expecting the father and mother to step up does not mean we expect them to do so without help or guidance.)
If we support the philosophy that someone illegally breaking into another's home should face the consequences of their actions, including accepting the homeowner has the right to self defense, how can we accept that abortion as a form of birth control should be a right?
Is is a "right" only in the Orwellian sense that words mean whatever government liberals says they mean. And notice that the main theme of my previous post is not denied, namely that sadly and tragically too many gun owners actually do 100% agree with the gun grabbers that there is in fact no metaphysical First Principle establishing any such things as a natural law right to keep and bear arms or a right to life.
How Tyranny Came to America
http://www.sobran.com/articles/tyranny.shtml
"Take abortion. Set aside your own views and feelings about it. Is it really possible that, as the Supreme Court in effect said, all the abortion laws of all 50 states — no matter how restrictive, no matter how permissive — had always been unconstitutional? Not only that, but no previous Court, no justice on any Court in all our history — not Marshall, not Story, not Taney, not Holmes, not Hughes, not Frankfurter, not even Warren — had ever been recorded as doubting the constitutionality of those laws. Everyone had always taken it for granted that the states had every right to enact them.
Are we supposed to believe, in all seriousness, that the Court’s ruling in Roe v. Wade was a response to the text of the Constitution, the discernment of a meaning that had eluded all its predecessors, rather than an enactment of the current liberal agenda? Come now."
Eurodriver
05-18-14, 20:08
One can be against abortion without the religious aspect. No need to be disrespectful.
If its morally wrong for your wife to kill your six month old daughter, why is it morally acceptable to kill her in the womb?
We should be debating what type of human has the right to life, otherwise the antireligious zealots are just going to get the thread locked with their Bible bashing.
I'm not a big fan of abortion, and I would never want it to be used as a form of birth control. Though I doubt many could afford to use it that way.
There are cases where I can understand it, and I don't mean the rare "rape pregnancy". What if a mother has complications, and her new pregnancy is making her unfit for raising the child she has right in front of her? What if there's a chance it could kill her? What if her sickness costs her her career, and now she has to raise the existing child AND a baby with no income?
It's easy to say these aren't the majorities or abortions. Unfortunately with government, they deal in absolutes. Since the current stance is "don't get one if you don't want one", instead of "absolutely nobody can have one ever for any reason", I'm more inclined to say the first represents the idea of freedom a little more. And since not everyone in this country believe in god, actually more than half don't subscribe to Christianity, then nothing about enforcing a set of moralities based on one religion sounds like freedom.
If you guys want to live by the bible and think of that as god granting you absolute liberty, that's awesome. I encourage you to do so and would never ask that you do anything different. Just don't force me or my family to live by your beliefs. And don't make laws for non-religious to follow based in religious principles.
If you believe the right to life is relative that some human life has rights and others do not then how can you say any right is universal or "a natural right of man? Such as the right to defense? Perhaps only some people should have the right to defend themselves?
Only an irrational person can say an unborn baby is not a human person. Scientifically the fetus is an unborn human life. No mystical magical thing happens one second after birth to change it from nonhuman parasitical tissue to a human baby. It is a human after birth and before birth.
Liberals are typically irrational and driven by emotion so this nonscientific zeal for abortion fits in perfectly with their emotions, for themselves. Just like being blindly anti-gun, pro-Statism.
A true libertarian would support the essential rights to every human being regardless of age or ability: life and defense thereof, liberty, public speech, practice of their religion, and personal property.
MountainRaven
05-18-14, 22:39
Yes, you are right, they are in fact children, i.e. fellow human beings with the same right to life that you claim. What is interesting is that you are basically restating the position of Stephen Douglas who when debating Lincoln concerning the later's opposition to slavery said:
Earnestly, I'm not sure about the right to life.
The turkey and pig that gave their lives for the sandwich I enjoyed for dinner, for instance, might have taken offense at the idea that I have a right to life while they do not. All three of us being creatures created by God. As might a sow grizzly if I get too close to her cubs. Or an uncaring meteor that could randomly crash through the ceiling of my house and kill me. Billions of organisms die every day, I wonder what God would say of the right to life.
A quote from Robert Heinlein seems appropriate here: "Life? What 'right' to life has a man who is drowning in the Pacific? The ocean will not hearken to his cries. What 'right' to life has a man who must die to save his children? If he chooses to save his own life, does he do so as a matter of 'right'? If two men are starving and cannibalism is the only alternative to death, which man's right is 'unalienable'? And is it 'right'?"
If we accept that morality is a construct of evolution - whether guided by God's hand or not - then we must ask when a mother bear (that same bear who would gladly tear my soul from my body to save her cubs from the potential threat I might pose to them) chooses to let her cubs starve to death, is that immoral? We observe it in nature, the cubs cannot survive without their mother, but the mother can produce more cubs, and so - by nature's cruel but inescapable logic - the mother bear will let her cubs die.
If a woman becomes pregnant and does not desire or cannot afford that pregnancy, is it immoral to allow her to terminate that pregnancy - when it puts her life and well-being at risk? Some (many of them the same folks who will complain about accusations of rape flying far too freely, even while studies repeatedly find that acts of rape are wildly underreported) might say that she should not have had sex, although I would remind them that it takes two to tango and that the woman will invariably have to shoulder the greater part of the responsibility for any pregnancy and doubly so in the case of an unwanted pregnancy. By allowing her to terminate that pregnancy, we are not allowing her to wash her hands of the consequences of her actions. Studies have, after all, shown that many women must deal with traumatic emotional damage in the wake of such termination. And while there may be some women who will never feel an iota of remorse for their situation, for making the choice or choices that they did, I remind you that sociopathy is not limited to those with testes.
The solution, as with firearms, is not regulation but education. It is not to take firearms out of the hands of the innocent and the law-abiding, it is not to tell a woman what to do or how to live her life, it is to alleviate the socio-economic conditions that cause "gun" violence and unwanted and unsupportable pregnancies in the first place. It is not to enforce your ethical code through the power of government, but to allow people to choose freely with full knowledge of the consequences - and responsibilities - of their actions.
Earnestly, I'm not sure about the right to life.
Which is both scary and also confirms one of my assertions, namely the complete disconnect in understanding how all rights are in fact related to and dependant upon each other.
The turkey and pig that gave their lives for the sandwich I enjoyed for dinner, for instance, might have taken offense at the idea that I have a right to life while they do not. All three of us being creatures created by God. As might a sow grizzly if I get too close to her cubs. Or an uncaring meteor that could randomly crash through the ceiling of my house and kill me. Billions of organisms die every day, I wonder what God would say of the right to life.
Which simply begs the question as to why you have made the choice to wonder, instead of making the choice to seriously search for answers, and here Acts 10:9-11:8 provides an answer.
A quote from Robert Heinlein seems appropriate here: "Life? What 'right' to life has a man who is drowning in the Pacific? The ocean will not hearken to his cries. What 'right' to life has a man who must die to save his children? If he chooses to save his own life, does he do so as a matter of 'right'? If two men are starving and cannibalism is the only alternative to death, which man's right is 'unalienable'? And is it 'right'?" The same right to life you, or your wife, or your children have, when they are not drowning in the pacific. And the incident upon which the book and film "Alive" is based rather answers the question about cannibalism. However I suspect you might have been seeking justification for murder.
If we accept that morality is a construct of evolution Outside of moral relativists and militant atheists, who accepts this claim?
- whether guided by God's hand or not - then we must ask when a mother bear (that same bear who would gladly tear my soul from my body to save her cubs from the potential threat I might pose to them) chooses to let her cubs starve to death, is that immoral? We observe it in nature, the cubs cannot survive without their mother, but the mother can produce more cubs, and so - by nature's cruel but inescapable logic - the mother bear will let her cubs die.
Moral decisions, (and thus morality itself) are only capable among moral agents, and irrational animals are not moral agents. And sorry, but these "questions" give every indication that you have never seriously tried to find answers to them because any first year philosophy student could provide answer.
If a woman becomes pregnant and does not desire or cannot afford that pregnancy, is it immoral to allow her to terminate that pregnancy - when it puts her life and well-being at risk? If a woman has a child, and cannot afford that child, is it immoral to allow her to terminate that child - if she decides the child puts her life and well-being at risk?
The solution, as with firearms, is not regulation but education. It is not to take firearms out of the hands of the innocent and the law-abiding, it is not to tell a woman what to do or how to live her life, it is to alleviate the socio-economic conditions that cause "gun" violence and unwanted and unsupportable pregnancies in the first place. It is not to enforce your ethical code through the power of government, but to allow people to choose freely with full knowledge of the consequences - and responsibilities - of their actions.
Again, you are using the exact same justification for abortion that Stephen Douglas used in defense of slavery:
“I do not discuss the morals of the people favoring slavery, but let them settle that matter for themselves. I hold that the people who favor slavery are civilized, that they bear consciences, and that they are accountable to God and their posterity and not to us. It is for them to decide therefore the moral and religious right of the slavery question for themselves within their own limits.”
But you are right about one thing, education is most important. But one reason we are loosing the right to keep and bear arms (and all our rights) is because the people, including you, no longer believe that this right, (or even the right to life, or even any rights whatsoever) come from our Creator, as those who wrote the Constitution and the 2nd Amendment so steadfastly believed.
And as for education and abortion, again philosophy can help us make our way though the confusion.
The Apple Argument Against Abortion
http://www.crisismagazine.com/2012/the-apple-argument-against-abortion-3
"...Roe used such skepticism to justify a pro-choice position. Since we don’t know when human life begins, the argument went, we cannot impose restrictions. (Why it is more restrictive to give life than to take it, I cannot figure out.) So here is my refutation of Roe on its own premises, its skeptical premises: Suppose that not a single principle of this essay is true, beginning with the first one. Suppose that we do not even know what an apple is. Even then abortion is unjustifiable.
Let’s assume not a dogmatic skepticism (which is self-contradictory) but a skeptical skepticism. Let us also assume that we do not know whether a fetus is a person or not. In objective fact, of course, either it is or it isn’t (unless the Court has revoked the Law of Noncontradiction while we were on vacation), but in our subjective minds, we may not know what the fetus is in objective fact. We do know, however, that either it is or isn’t by formal logic alone.
A second thing we know by formal logic alone is that either we do or do not know what a fetus is. Either there is “out there,” in objective fact, independent of our minds, a human life, or there is not; and either there is knowledge in our minds of this objective fact, or there is not.
So, there are four possibilities:
1. The fetus is a person, and we know that;
2. The fetus is a person, but we don’t know that;
3. The fetus isn’t a person, but we don’t know that; or
4. The fetus isn’t a person, and we know that.
What is abortion in each of these four cases?
In Case 1, where the fetus is a person and you know that, abortion is murder. First-degree murder, in fact. You deliberately kill an innocent human being.
In Case 2, where the fetus is a person and you don’t know that, abortion is manslaughter. It’s like driving over a man-shaped overcoat in the street at night or shooting toxic chemicals into a building that you’re not sure is fully evacuated. You’re not sure there is a person there, but you’re not sure there isn’t either, and it just so happens that there is a person there, and you kill him. You cannot plead ignorance. True, you didn’t know there was a person there, but you didn’t know there wasn’t either, so your act was literally the height of irresponsibility. This is the act Roe allowed.
In Case 3, the fetus isn’t a person, but you don’t know that. So abortion is just as irresponsible as it is in the previous case. You ran over the overcoat or fumigated the building without knowing that there were no persons there. You were lucky; there weren’t. But you didn’t care; you didn’t take care; you were just as irresponsible. You cannot legally be charged with manslaughter, since no man was slaughtered, but you can and should be charged with criminal negligence.
Only in Case 4 is abortion a reasonable, permissible, and responsible choice. But note: What makes Case 4 permissible is not merely the fact that the fetus is not a person but also your knowledge that it is not, your overcoming of skepticism. So skepticism counts not for abortion but against it. Only if you are not a skeptic, only if you are a dogmatist, only if you are certain that there is no person in the fetus, no man in the coat, or no person in the building, may you abort, drive, or fumigate. This undercuts even our weakest, least honest escape: to pretend that we don’t even know what an apple is, just so we have an excuse for pleading that we don’t know what an abortion is."
MountainRaven
05-19-14, 11:27
Which is both scary and also confirms one of my assertions, namely the complete disconnect in understanding how all rights are in fact related to and dependant upon each other.
Funny, I could say the same about you.
However I suspect you might have been seeking justification for murder.
I don't believe in moral relativism.
All societies agree that murder is moral under some conditions and immoral under others. Here, we typically call it self-defense, service to country and community, or to protect the honor of our country. Some people would do so in defense of their church, their tribe, or their honor, &c.
We also kill to feed ourselves and to protect our food. Animal rights activists are not wrong to call this murder, but it is murder motivated by millions of years of evolution, of survival, and therefore moral.
Killing a wolf because you think it might threaten your livestock - or someone's livestock for the hell of it - is not immoral because it is murder, because it is destroying someone's property. It is immoral because it serves no purpose.
In war, many are killed in cold blood. This is not immoral, because it serves a purpose in defense of your country's interests.
Moral decisions, (and thus morality itself) are only capable among moral agents, and irrational animals are not moral agents. And sorry, but these "questions" give every indication that you have never seriously tried to find answers to them because any first year philosophy student could provide answer.
I have never seen any evidence that humans are rational animals. Humans are illogical, vain, irrational. Very, very, very few humans are moral. The vast majority are amoral and a few are immoral. In fact, much of what he ascribe to moral human beings are, in fact, nothing more than the results of the abject disgust expressed by the amoral against the immoral.
Again, you are using the exact same justification for abortion that Stephen Douglas used in defense of slavery:
And using Abraham Lincoln's justification as a blunt instrument to make women slaves of the state is so much better?
But you are right about one thing, education is most important. But one reason we are loosing the right to keep and bear arms (and all our rights) is because the people, including you, no longer believe that this right, (or even the right to life, or even any rights whatsoever) come from our Creator, as those who wrote the Constitution and the 2nd Amendment so steadfastly believed.
Whether guided by God or not, our Creator was evolution. So, you know, there is that.
Curious, isn't it, that the Founders didn't think about the right to life of whales or wolves or cows or sheep. Were they not endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights? Are these rights not the same as those the Creator gave us?
And as for education and abortion, again philosophy can help us make our way though the confusion.[/QUOTE]
A fetus is a nascent human being. An unborn human child. It cannot survive independent of its mother nor its mother's womb.
If this were not the case, I might feel different. But I would no more demand a mother carry her child to term, for the sake of the child, and with the full force of government, than give the government power to make every healthy man and woman a blood and organ donor.
By giving government the power to interfere in a woman's pregnancy, you give them the power to interfere whenever it might 'help' your health - or your neighbor's. You give the government the power to tell you which doctor to see and when. How much exercise you must do and what kinds. And we just had a car accident five states away and you happen to have the right-sized lungs, so we're going to need one of yours, or else you will be charged with negligent homicide. Just got in a car wreck yourself and are in a vegetative state? Prognosis is extremely poor, you'll never come out of it. Your living will says that you want the plug to be pulled, but you have a right to life, so your family is going to have to keep you alive - and pay the hospital, too - until your body finally fails. The government decides that guns are unhealthy? Say good-bye to your guns. The government decides that murdering a home invader who threatens your life and the lives of your family is unjustifiable? Say hello to prison.
You don't see the slippery slope: Like every person who argues for "compromise" on the issue of our Second Amendment rights and our rights against search and seizure and our right to privacy: They don't want your guns. They don't want to spy on you. They don't want your organs. An innocent man has nothing to fear from the government. They just think you should give a little. Like you should only be able to carry a gun if there is a specific threat against your life. Like you should only be able to get an abortion if it threatens your life. That only by spying on you can you be kept safe from the smelly, goat-f___ing, cave-dwelling, turban-wearing bogeyman.
Funny, I could say the same about you.
You could try, but then you would be at pains to explain as to why my claims that there exists a right to life (which you doubt exists) and that the right to keep and bear arms, the right to private property, the right to free speech, and the right to life, are all part and parcel of the same Natural Law principles establishing all our inalienable rights, is for you "scary". But by all means, have at it.
I don't believe in moral relativism.
So you are claiming that philosophical materialism and militant atheism support metaphysical principles (immaterial reality) and objective morality?
How is that exactly?
All societies agree that murder is moral under some conditions and immoral under others.
No, they don't. What an absurd statement.
Here, we typically call it self-defense, service to country and community, or to protect the honor of our country. Some people would do so in defense of their church, their tribe, or their honor, &c. Meaning that it is not in fact "murder". You seem to believe that words can mean whatever you want them to mean, and that fixed definitions are an illusion, which means your denial of believing in moral relativism was spurious. Killing in war and in self-defense are not "murder". If you cannot even understand that much then we have even bigger problems here than I feared.
We also kill to feed ourselves and to protect our food. Animal rights activists are not wrong to call this murder,
Not only are they wrong to call hunting a deer "murder", but also full-on whack-job, batshit, looney-tunes, out of their tiny little dipshit minds, crazy.
I have never seen any evidence that humans are rational animals. Humans are illogical, vain, irrational.
One would have to understand the difference between rational and irrational to claim something as one or the other, and only a rational creature is capable of that. Again, this is Philosophy 101.
And using Abraham Lincoln's justification as a blunt instrument to make women slaves of the state is so much better?
So for you hunting a deer is "murder", but deliberately, mercilessly, and barbarically, killing an innocent unborn child isn't. Wow.
Curious, isn't it, that the Founders didn't think about the right to life of whales or wolves or cows or sheep. Were they not endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights? Are these rights not the same as those the Creator gave us?
It is not in the least "curious" as I don't hold the opinion that our Founding Fathers were full-on whack-job, batshit, looney-tunes, out of their minds, crazy.
A fetus is a nascent human being. An unborn human child. It cannot survive independent of its mother nor its mother's womb.
Exactly, an unborn child is a human being. And yes, many a fetus can survive independent of their mother and their mother's womb. And as technology advances that point is being pushed back ever further.
On the other hand what the liberal gun-grabbing pro-abortionists are claiming is that no one alive was ever conceived, just like you are claiming you were never conceived, that something was conceived, but it wasn't you.
If this were not the case, I might feel different. But I would no more demand a mother carry her child to term, for the sake of the child, and with the full force of government, than give the government power to make every healthy man and woman a blood and organ donor.
Coming from someone who actually stated that agrees with equating hunting deer to murder, and has stated that he is not even sure that there exists a right to life for born children much less unborn children, this is not in the least surprising. And yet you somehow support (at least I hope, at this point I cannot say with any certainty, which again is rather scary) the full force of government demanding that a mother not kill her newborn child.
By giving government the power to interfere in a woman's pregnancy, you give them the power to interfere whenever it might 'help' your health - or your neighbor's. You give the government the power to tell you which doctor to see and when. How much exercise you must do and what kinds.
No, that is your ideology forcing that, for it is the pro-abortionists who are forcing socialized medicine on the nation. And it is not surprising. If as you claim the government has the power to say this person is a human being, but this person, or to use your words, human child, is not a human being, then you have bestowed on government ultimate power to decide everything.
You don't see the slippery slope: Like every person who argues for "compromise" on the issue of our Second Amendment rights and our rights against search and seizure and our right to privacy:
Thus why I keep repeating again and again that the one and only road back to greater freedom and liberty is to tear down and smash into dust every single last brick and stone in the repugnant ideological wall of these miscreants. http://i1328.photobucket.com/albums/w522/mtjh45/5a884389007feaa07dbc860ddb1cd884_zps23d38c9a.jpeg (http://s1328.photobucket.com/user/mtjh45/media/5a884389007feaa07dbc860ddb1cd884_zps23d38c9a.jpeg.html)
While you on the other hand are claiming that we actually need to march in lock-step with much of the liberal social agenda of the gun-grabbers.
Sorry, but no thanks.
Smuckatelli
05-19-14, 20:26
Taking religion out of the debate and only going by science;
It is a pretty fascinating video, at 5:05 this is stated....
At this moment, a unique genetic code arises, instantly determining gender, hair color, eye color and hundreds of other characteristics.
This new single cell, the zygote, is the beginning of a new human being.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BFrVmDgh4v4
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.