Originally Posted by Sooner Bob
My only issue is, if we are going to utilize this line of thinking as it pertains to this discussion, isn't it POSSIBLE that abortion falls within the realm of the bolded part of the quotation?
|
|
My only issue is, if we are going to utilize this line of thinking as it pertains to this discussion, isn't it POSSIBLE that abortion falls within the realm of the bolded part of the quotation?
Yes, I can see where that could be the case.
Just wanted to summarize Nazguls logic to make sure we are on the same page:
Issue: Suffrage
Timeline: Women had been subjugated globally for, well, thousands of years... long enough to say forever.
Act of defiance: In the US, women and suffrage supporters used pickets and protests and national campaigns to gain favor before winning their right to vote. (democratic resolution)
Nazgul's conclusion: Legit
Issue: Civil Rights
Timeline: Blacks had been living under some form of Jim Crow Law for essentially 100 years in most of the US.
Act of defiance: Blacks and other civil rights supporters use non-violent protests and demonstrations to gain favor nationally to prompt passage of the Civil Rights Act of 65 (democratic resolution).
Nazgul's conclusion: Legit
Issue: Anti-War protest
Timeline: Anti-war sentiment builds in response to the continuation of the Iraq War (and to a lesser extent the War in Afghanistan)
Act of defiance: protests and the election of Obama (the King of Drone strikes and bypassing congress to unilaterally engage in war on seemingly random middle-Eastern countries), but alas, (democratic resolution)
Nazgul's conclusion: Legit
Issue: Abortion
Timeline: Abortion has been legal for some 40 years by Nazgul's reckoning. Anti-abortion sentiment has been present to some degree or another the entire time.
Act of defiance: pro-lifers routinely protest, picket, engage in national campaigns to gain public support, and elect public officials who share their views on abortion. In short, the democratic process.
Nazgul's conclusion: These people don't give two ****s about abortion. If they did they would do something radical. They have sat by for 40 years while abortion has gone on and havent done a damn thing about it!
When asked 3 times what actions pro-lifers need to take to make their concern legitimate, despite the fact that they have acted virtually identical to previous parties that were concluded legitimate by Nazgul, Nazgul has been unable to provide an answer.
Is that about right Nazgul? Anything that needs to be corrected or added or subtracted?
That's not even what intellectual honesty means. Le sigh.
Also, there are bad things in the world that are just bad without redeeming quality. What about those, you know?
You suck at reading comprehension.
No, but you made a fact claim about religious people having abortions, then you cited a statistic about Christians having abortions. I wanted to know what the statistic was for religious people having abortions. Not everyone who self-identifies as a "Christian" is religious. That's all.
That doesn't necessarily follow. There are plenty of people who self-identify as Christians who also believe elective abortion is acceptable. They even use the Bible to justify their beliefs.
But pointing out that people say one thing and do another isn't exactly news. That's humanity. No different from anyone else, whether Christian or not. Even atheists are morally inconsistent.
So then would you say that sufficient evidence of being a real Christian would be something like blockading an abortion clinic? Or bombing one?
Either way, the fact of the matter is that pro-lifers, including Christians, spend significant amounts of time and money to help raise children who would otherwise be aborted. It's not just an exercise in talking about it. Pro-lifers, including Christians who are pro-life, are the ones in the trenches adopting unwanted children from crisis pregnancies, adopting leftover embryos created in IVF, raising money for crisis pregnancy centers, giving money to crisis pregnancy centers, etc.
And there are more crisis pregnancy centers in this county than abortion clinics. And most of those CPCs are funded by private, individual donations to provide FREE care for women and are not funded by payments for their services like abortion clinics are. By contrast, relatively little of this sort of activity happens on the pro-choice side. Therefore a large segment of the pro-choice crowd is not really "pro-choice" after all but is instead functionally pro-abortion (even though all they do is march around and protest). Remember, Planned Parenthood doesn't make money by advising women to keep their children; they get paid to provide abortions. And for every pro-choicer standing at a rally with a relatively innocuous sign about "choice", there's another with a sign calling for "abortion on demand and without apology".
But, just because someone objects to something on a moral basis does not make them obligated to do whatever it takes to eliminate the problem.
- Just because I might object to slavery, it doesn't mean I'm obligated to hire a slave. Or personally rescue a slave from her master's plantation.
- Just because I might object to wife beating, it doesn't mean I'm obligated to take in an abused woman. Or personally rescue her from her abusive husband.
- Just because I might not want people to be homeless, it doesn't mean I'm obligated to house, clothe and feed a homeless person.
- Just because I might not want people to get cancer and die, it doesn't mean I'm obligated to donate all of my money to cancer research. Or become a researcher myself.
- And just because I might want to fire the AD, it doesn't mean I'm obligated to spend time attaining a position as university president so I can do it personally.
Make no mistake, ladies and gentlemen: when viewing feigned protests like "pro-lifers aren't doing everything they can to stop abortion" or "Christians don't really care about babies after their born", it eventually becomes apparent that for a pro-choicer who has nothing but hatred in their eyes, it wouldn't matter how much a pro-lifer actually did, because it would never be enough.
But hey, everybody feel free to make sweeping generalizations if you don't mind them in return...
I think if we restate Nazgul's position to indicate that the Christian has a much higher price to pay (eternal damnation) than the other examples which only have mortal liabilities, it becomes more compelling.
That said, I am still not swayed.
Yeah, because THAT'S it. I don't know how to read good. You couldn't POSSIBLY be misusing a phrase. You are such a ****, I swear man. I think that IRL you must be a lot more pleasant, because there's no WAY you could have friends or get laid with your on-board persona.
That's not what he's saying. What he saying is, in this specific case, is:
- If you witnessed someone beating/murdering a child in public, you'd probably try to stop it from happening.
- Pro-lifers say that an abortion is the same thing as murdering a child (which he agreed with above in the thread)
- However, the rank-and-file pro-lifers do very little in real life to stop abortions from happening. Basically nothing.
- Therefore, pro-lifers exhibit an underlying tacit agreement that abortion is not the same as murdering a child.
- Moreover, plenty of pro-lifers are kind of full of ****, given the foregoing.
It's not ironclad, but it's not bad point.
Yeah because THAT's it. I dont know how to use words. It couldn't possibly be that you have failed to comprehend something. Hell, this was just a few posts after you couldn't comprehend that I directly addressed Nazgul's point rather than avoided it. You are such an arrogant ****, and for no good reason. I doubt in real life you are any more likable because you have shown no evidence that you can disagree with someone without being a complete ****hole about it.
How is that poll working out for you, BTW? Still losing the popularity contest to the outsider who goes out of his way to piss people off by arguing just for the sake of arguing...even after you framed the poll in your favor AND begged for affirmative action votes?
You must feel really confident in yourself.
Look in the post above yours, ****boy. It's just YOU that most of us can't stand. You're a clown, just an embarrassment to the conservative cause. Even Bounce and 87 garner more respect than you do. They're honest with themselves, even if flawed at times. You just spiral on, prattling about whatever pops into mind regardless of whether it's related. You'd be laughed out of a room. Sancho, I'll repeat it- you let us know when there's ANYthing you comprehend that ANY of us don't. I'd be ****ing shocked. SHOCKED. Unless you're a PhD in theoretical physics and you've just been sandbagging this entire time, I doubt you're going to be able to outdo hardly anyone on this board. You really need to know your role.
Let the adults talk. Naz and VU actually have something interesting going on, mmmkay.
Im not a conservative, dumb****. Maybe that is the root of your failure to comprehend anything I am saying.
How is that poll working out for you, BTW? Still losing the popularity contest to the outsider who goes out of his way to piss people off by arguing just for the sake of arguing...even after you framed the poll in your favor AND begged for affirmative action votes?
You must feel really confident in yourself.
Shhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh, I'm waiting to see what VU and Naz have to say. Be a ****boy in a different thread. Poll closed at noon, I won, and you stupid ****- I said I LOOKED like a minority sometimes. It was a joke. You can't read for ****!!! HAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAH
Awww, update, some people voted late. YOU'RE WINNING. YOU'RE THE SMART ONE!!! We're all in trouble, especially since you can't read for ****.
Son, I look at my degrees and my bank account, I have no problems with confidence I promise you that. It's pretty funny to me that you put ANY stock in that poll at all. But given your obvious deficiencies, I'll consider any benefit you glean therefrom as a result of my Christian duties. YOU'RE WELCOME.
No, I read it just fine and you begged for affirmative votes whether it was a joke or not.
Uh, I'm white you dumb ****. I said I looked like a minority sometimes. Jesus Effing Christ, just such your **** mouth and PM me if you need to continue on; you're ruining this thread. I want to see what VU has to say after I attempted to restate Naz's point.
If you stop someone from murdering an innocent person on the street you are commended, hell you might even get a medal from the mayor or something. If you bust into an abortion clinic and physically stop an abortion you get arrested.
Pretending the two circumstances are the same and therefore allow you to judge the sincerity of one's concern for life is intellectually dishonest.
The security guard didnt stop the robbery attempt because one of the robbers had a gun to his head.... therefore the security guard doesn't give two ****s about robbery. He should stop acting like he does.
I said you begged for affirmative action votes. Which you did.
I even acknowledged that it might have been a joke. It still took place.
I never said anything about what color you are.
You need to get better at lying if you are going to do it so much. Or better at reading if you are going to be participating on this board.
Dude, just PM me. Not responding to you anymore.
VUGEAR: so, this is what I said above, and I am curious about your response:
That's not what he's saying. What he saying is, in this specific case, is:
- If you witnessed someone beating/murdering a child in public, you'd probably try to stop it from happening.
- Pro-lifers say that an abortion is the same thing as murdering a child (which he agreed with above in the thread)
- However, the rank-and-file pro-lifers do very little in real life to stop abortions from happening. Basically nothing.
- Therefore, pro-lifers exhibit an underlying tacit agreement that abortion is not the same as murdering a child.
- Moreover, plenty of pro-lifers are kind of full of ****, given the foregoing.
It's not ironclad, but it's not a bad point.
Also, Naz, correct me if I missed a point there. I don't want to misquote or ****ize the point you were making.
Are you somehow smarter in PM's? Does it improve your reading comprehension when you see it there? If not, what is the point? I am sure you come off like a mouth-frothing imbecile in PM's as well.
The point is inherently flawed. Here's why. Your initial qualifier is a child being beaten or murdered in public. Your second qualifier is an abortion. For these two things to be equal, the abortion would have to be done in public. It's not. The flaw in your reasoning comes in b/c your two comparisons aren't equal. There are numerous cases of 'suspected' abuse that go unreported, because people don't know for 100% certainty what's happening--much like a woman that doesn't appear pregnant walking into a clinic.
Edit: We also know by the Kitty Genovese case and the Jerry Sandusky case that even when people know things are happening, many times they are afraid to say something.
Hmm. OK, so:
- If you knew children were getting beaten to death constantly in a house down the street, you'd likely do something about it.
- People know abortions are happening constantly and where they are happening, yet do very little about it other than be VERY LOUD in their opinions about it.
Isn't it a disconnect that people say ABORTION IS MURDER yet really don't behave as though children are being murdered? I see Naz's point. Like I said, it's not ironclad, but there's a point there.
Another way to say it is: many pro-lifers are often VERY loud, and VEHEMENT that ABORTION. IS. MURDER. Yet, the general behavior of those same pro-lifers doesn't seem to be a reaction to the m**** murder of children. Right?
(Which leads to the point: even many pro-lifers tend to tacitly admit or agree that abortion is not exactly the same as murdering a child outside the womb.)
Okay, then thank you for doing your best to clear that up. My response is then that pro-lifers are indeed the ones who are doing what they can to intercede. They appear at abortion clinics, en masse, and try to persuade pregnant mothers to consider other alternatives. But there are legal restrictions on abortion protestors being able to walk into an abortion clinic and physically restrain someone from performing an abortion. Is the criticism then that pro-lifers aren't violating the law sufficiently to demonstrate their support of the cause?
In reality, there's even more criticism that pro-lifers are doing too much in the public arena. That they're "imposing their morality on others."
So maybe the rank-and-file pro-lifers don't do much. Well, many pro-choice people talk about making abortion "safe, legal and rare". To use your words, what are the rank-and-file pro-choicers doing to make abortion rare? If they truly wanted abortion to be rare, then wouldn't they campaign to make it illegal again? Not just arguing for **** education or free condoms. Because making abortion illegal correlates with lower abortion rates. Most people seem to agree that abortions aren't exactly a great thing. Wouldn't outlawing abortion make it less common and take out a bigger chunk of abortions than merely showing movies to kids and handing them rubbers? Let's go for the low-hanging fruit and simply make abortion illegal again and eliminate 85% of abortions.
A pro-choicer accusing a pro-lifer of not doing enough to stop abortion seems highly disingenuous.
And by the way, not all pro-lifers consider abortion to be murder. Although it does constitute taking a life. But "murder" has legal implications that involve motive, malice of forethought, etc. Abortion may be a form of homicide, but it's not necessarily murder.
It is not just that the abortion isnt happening in public, it is that there are legal consequences to the action Nazgul is demanding.
It is really kind of perverse to look at it from his prospective.
1. Legalize behavior X
2. Prosecute/jail anyone who interferes with behavior X
3. ****ert that anyone who doesn't interfere with behavior X really doesn't care about it, so they should just go away and shut up.
If you try to stop my partner from taking your wife's purse I am going to blow your head off.
Well, you obviously don't really think robbery is wrong/care very much because you didn't try to stop it.
Therefore, robbery is OK!
2 users like Sancho's post: oucub23, soonerintn
Only for one reason: that up to a certain point in the embryo's development, it can't feel pain. So even though a pro-lifer may feel that killing an innocent human being without proper justification is morally objectionable, it's not as urgent a matter if that human doesn't experience excruciating pain. But it doesn't make abortion any more justifiable.
Which is why attempts to restrict (or allow) abortion based on the possibility (or absence) of fetal pain are flawed. There are ways to kill adults in their sleep without them feeling pain; that in itself doesn't justify doing so.
Last edited by VUGear; 01-24-2013 at 05:25 PM.
you're right, it's not the same thing. congrats on stating the obvious. you m ust never lose a case
Be careful with the Kitty Genovese case; I believe a number of facts came out later that cast some doubt on the original characterization that all those people heard it happening and did nothing.
What should they do? If someone knows a kid is being beaten, they call the police. What happens if you call the police and report an abortion? As Sancho stated earlier, if I kick in the door and save the kid, I'm probably a hero. It's not a guarantee, and is also the reason people call the police rather than taking direct action themselves. If I kick in the door and stop an abortion, I go to prison. Once again, you've got two situations that aren't the same.
No, it is the vehement pro-lifers that create the standard that Nazgul is examining. To wit:
ABORTION IS MURDER!
Ok, well, you're not really acting like children are being murdered.
Answer: ???
They are acting just like one would expect them to act knowing that any action above what they are currently doing will get them imprisoned.
If people routinely murdered their toddlers in public and you would be arrested and imprisoned for physically attempting to stop it would you stop very many? Would you even stop one? If thats just the way things were and had been your whole life?
What if they did it privately in their home? Would you bust in and stop it every time you suspected it was going on knowing that you would be sent to prison for doing so?
Last edited by Sancho; 01-24-2013 at 04:38 PM.
again, what are we suppose to do about it?
A few things off the top of my head that would better indicate that pro-lifers are serious in their opinions about abortion = murder in the first degree:
1. Massive foundations that pay for women to have the child
2. Massive foundations that pay for the upbringing of that child in foster care or orphanage settings
3. Huge lines of willing adoptive parents.
4. Massive foundations that help women who keep their babies afford to raise their babies
These seem to me to be reasonable reactions from people interested in stopping the deaths of children. That's putting your money where your mouth is. That indicates a level of action that matches the emotional outrage.
It's like that person we all know that ****es about his or her job constantly, week in and week out, yet never looks for a new job.
I just think Naz's point is interesting, that's all. Not one I had considered before today.
The following users like this post: Aurora
Because they would be imprisoned for looking for a new job? If so, then yes it is like that.
Actually, I listed several things off the top of my head. None of them included anything illegal.
Another would be local volunteer services that daycare kids so working moms can continue to work instead of feeling pressured to have an abortion.
The following users like this post: Aurora
First of all: isn't that an interesting point that has at least some basis in real life? That some pro-lifers' actions on the ground don't seem to match the intensity of their message?
Which wealth-redistribution programs did you spend your time, money, and effort on to prove you were serious about <insert issue here>?
VU has already addressed your list. One is not required to let a hobo move in with them to prove they are concerned about the homelessness problem.
Why are people who oppose the death penalty not tasked with funding their own prisons in which to house the murdering pedophiles so the tax-payer doesnt have to? I mean, if they dont then they obviously dont give two ****s about the death penalty.
I like the buzzwords you used. Wealth redistribution. I guess all charitable causes are just evil wealth redistribution programs. Stupid United Way! F the Salvation Army!
Since when, exactly, was saving babies from abortion a redistribution of wealth? WHY DO YOU HATE BABIES.
Again, keep it limited to abortion. We're talking about pro-lifers and their volume and seriousness. You're bringing in other people and issues that are unrelated.
If you're concerned about the *murder* of *children* in a loud, vehement way, I just think that Naz has a very interesting point that perhaps you (the rhetorical you, not you personally) should do something about it. But there's a severe lack of any concrete action that would encourage a woman not to have an abortion.
The point is: there's a major disconnect b/n the volume and emotion of pro-lifers, and the actions of pro-lifers. Pro-lifers make it more than a political football, it's MURDER of CHILDREN. Yet their actions largely indicate that, well, it's really just a political football.
Y'all are the ones that asked me "what SHOULD they do, then?" I gave some reasonable examples that large groups of people that want to help stop the murder of children might undertake.
Yes, but all you did was shift the burden of cost from the mom to the people who supposedly care, to prove they care.
Were you required to prove that you care about toddlers being murdered by dedicating your time, money, or energy to some "massive" foundation that takes care of toddlers whose moms decide they dont want?
Are you in line to adopt an abused kid? If no, then you must not give two ****s about them. Therefore you have no valid input on whether or not child abuse should be legal or not?
Why is only one side of only THIS issue held to such a bizarre standard to prove they care about something?
Pro-choice because you claim to care about the rights of women? Then prove it by funding massive programs to eliminate Islam around the globe or shut up.
Hell if you REALLY cared about the rights of women you woundn't waste 1 ****ing second worrying about the "plight" of the American female when about a billion women are living under the most oppressive and hostile to females entity the world has ever known.
Care about homelessness? Then let a hobo move in to your house or shut up.
Care about global warming? Then spend YOUR money on a massive energy research program to develop cleaner energy sources (YOU, not me, I am not the one who claims to care about it) or shut up.
Care about poverty? Then take every dime of your wealth outside of the reasonable cost to live in your area and fund a massive program to take of the poor, so that it doesnt have to be done via taxation... or shut up.
Also, I am talking about the rhetorical you, not you personally.
On which issue does your action match your rhetoric? Rhetorically, unless you have a real example?
Did a single person who supported the idea of Universal Health Care and spewed the "healthcare is a right" lie to make it happen prove they actually gave two ****s about it by funding some massive foundation to take care of sick people who couldnt afford healthcare? "If you dont support ObamaCare you just want people to die in the streets!" Oh really, what are you doing right now to prevent people from dying in the street? Nothing? Then shut up, you dont actually care.
2nd Amendment, since you brought it up earlier, Liberals have been bleating about this for decades. Not once has one offered to fund a massive program that will provide everyone with their own trained body guard. I guess they dont really care about this issue as much as they pretend to, right?
So back to the original response to Naz's point... what did the anti-war crowd do to stop war that pro-lifers arent doing to stop abortion? What did the civil rights crusaders do for their cause that the pro-lifers arent doing for theirs? Can we say then that with Naz's logic the Occupy crowd effectively didnt give two ****s about anything at all since they didnt do a damn thing except ****, destroy public property, and waste taxpayer money?
Last edited by Sancho; 01-24-2013 at 07:41 PM.
Not in the least
As mentioned before, those functions are some of the things crisis pregnancy centers are helping to meet. The financial support is there. In fact, let's extend the scope: isn't it rather obvious that for some families, forgoing the cost of raising a child has allowed them to afford other things. Maybe not for those below the poverty line, but for others. But in a time when Americans are spending over $100 billion a year on alcohol, over $81 billion on tobacco products, over $70 billion on soft drinks, over $40 billion on animal care, and, wait for it... over $10 billion a year on ****, it would seem like there is at least a small chunk of disposable income that could help pay for foster care.
The National Council for Adoption has said that, "if women knew that there are many couples hoping to adopt for every one adoptable infant, that adoption is beneficial to most adopted persons and birth mothers who make an adoption plan, there would be more adoptions."
Statistics at adoption.com point to evidence that there are many more potential adoptive parents than available children.
But both sides can play the moral inconsistency card.
What about pro-choicers who claim that abortion is a form of health care? It's just another surgical procedure. Again, in keeping with President Clinton's mantra of "safe, legal and rare," what exactly are pro-choicers doing to make abortion safer? Don't we want health care to be safe, using modern medicine and sterile instruments? It seems we'd expect pro-choicers to be campaigning for safer abortion clinics. Or making sure surgical abortions only take place in accredited hospitals in state-of-the-art operating rooms with proper equipment and practices according to the FGI Guidelines for Design and Construction of Health Care Facilities, proper lighting according to IESNA guidelines, adequate ventilation according to ASHRAE guidelines, and other relevant building codes. Seems reasonable, right?
So then why do abortion clinics and pro-choice advocates fight every step of the way to keep abortion clinics from having to conform to building codes for healthcare facilities? Even in supposedly progressive, abortion-friendly states? Why do pro-choicers seem to be fine with abortion clinics barely being up to the standards of animal clinics? Why do pro-choicers say they want safe abortions, and then do everything they can to make sure they're not safe? Why do pro-choicers portray pro-lifers as not caring about poor, unwed mothers, then turn around and actively contribute to the possibility of those mothers getting an infection and/or dying during their abortion? Why do pro-choicers care about women when they're pregnant, but don't give a damn about them if they get an HAI (or its outpatient equivalent)? Where's the outrage?
Again, it seems disingenuous for a pro-choicer to accuse a pro-lifer of not doing enough. Pointing out any supposed moral inconsistency on the part of a pro-lifer is just another ad hominem argument.
Speaking of Christian pro-lifers, you know that Christians were also in the vanguard of the abolitionist movement. Incredibly, over the course of the campaign against slavery, they actually had the audacity to do the following:Where were the "massive foundations" to compensate slaveowners who would lose their slaves? Where were the "massive foundations" to pay for the planting and the harvest of the fields? Where were the "huge lines" of willing employers for freed slaves?
- They believed that ****es were human beings, and not just humans, but persons as well;
- They believed that ****es had as many rights as fully-white caucasians;
- They valued the rights of slaves over slaveholders;
- They cared more about some stupid ****ing ****s than they did about normal white folk;
- They attempted to impose their values on others;
- They dared to cite the Bible to support their position;
- They wanted a Federal prohibition against slavery;
- They tried to legislate morality, in a clear violation of the separation of church and state;
- They were anti-choice and wanted to restrict a slaveowner's right to make her own decision whether or not to own a slave;
- They wanted to tell slaveowners what they could and couldn't do with their farms;
- They wanted to force slaveowners to give up their slaves and endure the physical, financial and emotional burden of having to care for their fields themselves;
- They advocated for freeing slaves with no plan for how society would support such a large influx of uneducated labor into the workforce;
- They cared about slaves on the plantation but didn't care what happened to them after they were freed;
- They ignored the fact that laws against owning a slave can't hope to eliminate all cases of slavery because making slavery illegal has merely forced would-be slaveowners to try risky, back-alley slave deals;
- They were a bunch of industrialists whose opinions on slavery didn't matter since they were incapable of ever owning a slave themselves;
- They were a bunch of Northerners who really only wanted to oppress Southerners;
- And I have a feeling the "rank-and-file" abolitionists didn't do squat other than sit around and complain about how immoral slavery was.
Abolitionists knew damned well that slaves were routinely mistreated and even killed and they knew where it was happening. If they were truly interested in stopping the ownership and mistreatment of African men, women and children, why didn't they do more to stop it? Did they secretly believe that ****es were less human than whites?
And yet the ones who resorted to violence to further their cause were condemned, and rightfully so. John Brown was no better than Eric Rudolph. Um, right?
Sound familiar? I guess we should dismiss the belief that slavery is wrong because it's religiously-informed.
"[S]ecularists are wrong when they ask believers to leave their religion at the door before entering into the public square. Frederick Douglas, Abraham Lincoln, Williams Jennings Bryant, Dorothy Day, Martin Luther King — indeed, the majority of great reformers in American history — were not only motivated by faith, but repeatedly used religious language to argue for their cause. So to say that men and women should not inject their 'personal morality' into public policy debates is a practical absurdity. Our law is by definition a codification of morality, much of it grounded in the Judeo-Christian tradition."
-- Barack Obama
That charge could be leveled at just about any group in the world.
Why do people wear crimson and say "Boomer Sooner!" when you p**** them on the street but they don't stand up and cheer at the games? If they really wanted OU to win, they'd suit up and play themselves. If they really wanted OU to have the best recruits, they'd personally pay for the Escalades and hookers it would take to land 'em. ****ing hypocrites...
Last edited by VUGear; 01-25-2013 at 07:41 PM.
Roughly at what point does a human being attain consciousness?
"Self-awareness" would be a better descriptor, and your guess is as good as mine. It's sometime after birth, though.
I think I hit a nerve. You spewed a lot of stuff, almost all of which isn't directly responsive.
Look, the point isn't that tons of people should give money to moms so they won't abort. The point is simply this:
Loud, aggressive pro-lifers that cry about the MURDER of CHILDREN- match your actions to your rhetoric, or calm the **** down. The pro-lifers are the ones setting the standard (baby murder), then they're not backing it up. They, themselves, basically tacitly admit they don't think it's REALLY baby murder through their actions. That's the point. If they wouldn't frame the issue so aggressively and emotionally (baby murder) then really the point evaporates.
Why shift from consciousness to self-awareness? Because it makes the after birth argument easier to defend?
There comes a point when the baby in the womb is as viable/self aware/conscious, etc. as it would be outside IMO. I'm not sure you could say that the baby in the womb isn't as self-aware the day before the birth as it is shortly after the birth.
Because I meant self-awareness the entire time. I didn't mean "the state of being awake".
Babies are not self-aware. Babies do not have metacognition. The "I think, therefore I am." kind of metacognitiion. That level of self-awareness and consciouness of being in the world: THAT'S the philosophical gift humans have, and the main reason we value life so highly. And that's why we have a vast gradient of the differing values of life. No ones gives a **** of bacteria is killed. We sort of care, not really, if an owl kills and eats a lark, we have laws that prohibit you from beating a dog but not from cutting your lawn, we allow abortions but not murder of 5 year olds, and we have tons of laws about protecting human life. Primarily, all based on metacognition or a sense of awareness.
This line of thought has been refuted several times.
Actually, not once has it. Saying it's so, doesn't make it so.
And again, for you guys, absolutism doesn't mean you're principled. I don't see how it's so hard to admit: yeah, perhaps vehement pro-lifers' actions don't match their words, and since they're talking about "baby murder", that's a stark difference.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
