Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
| Messages 1 - 300 of total 300 in this topic |
bookworm
Social climber
Falls Church, VA
|
|
|
Topic Author's Original Post - Aug 27, 2011 - 08:16pm PT
|
the alternate title of this thread: what liberalism hath wrought
in "the tempest", miranda exclaims, "oh, brave new world that has such creatures in't"; she is excited by the several men who have appeared, miraculously, on the island, the only men (besides her father and caliban) that she has ever seen
of course, her father and the audience know these men to be corrupt--calibans without the external ugliness; thus, prompting prospero's response: "'tis new to you"
orwell receives due credit for the prescience of "1984", but i think huxley was even more insightful about where humanity was headed...behold:
‘Sex box’ to get new name as parents revolt
Officials in Basel have agreed to rename the “sex box” after receiving some 3,000 letters of protest from parents angered by the controversial trove of wooden penises and fabric vaginas set to be used in a new sex education programme for playschool and primary school kids.
Christoph Eymann, Basel education minister and member of the liberal democrat party (LDP), responded to parent’s protests in an interview with SonntagsBlick.
“It was no doubt stupid to call it a ’sex box’ – we will change that. But we will stick to our goal: to get across to children that sexuality is something natural. Without forcing anything upon them or taking anything away from their parents,“ he said.
Many parents say they do not understand why sex education needs to be taught to children as young as four.
“There are usually two reasons why sexuality becomes a topic in kindergarten: either the teacher is pregnant or one of the children will soon get a new sister or brother. In such cases, it is correct that the teacher can respond”, Eymann told SonntagsBlick.
Eymann said he understood that one line in the programme, “touching can be enjoyed heartily”, could be misconstrued, but insisted: “It is not about ‘touch me, feel me’. We want to tell the children that there is contact that they may find pleasurable, but some that they should say ’no’ to. Kids can unfortunately can become victims of sexual violence already at playschool age.“
Eymann said he would prefer if sex education was taught to children at home but argued that education officials needed to respond to the realities of today.
“We currently live in an oversexualised society. There is uncontrolled distribution of pornographic material that can reach young children. Some primary school children know the TV schedule until 2am. We would like to offer these children firm support, which is often not available in the family. The box is only an aid. I trust the teachers to approach the material with care.”
Despite this, Eymann said he takes critics’ arguments seriously, and has ordered the contents of the box to be examined after finding the cover of previous teaching material tasteless.
Some parents have called for their children to be exempted from sex education. Eymann says he is strictly against exemptions, although he is aware this will not make him many friends:
“Primary school may be the only big audience that our society has. The shared values that it teaches are very important. I would definitely like to keep this. The explanatory lesson can be portrayed in a way that doesn’t offend“, he said.
Critics of public school sex education have been warning of this for decades: Once you start down the slippery slope of teaching kids about the mechanics of sex, it will invariably (in some school districts at least) eventually lead to advocacy for sex. Combine that with the relentless drive to introduce sex ed at lower and lower grades, and you end up with what’s happening in Switzerland: Telling four-year-olds how pleasurable sex is and leading them in classroom activities that are tantamount to public masturbation:
‘Sex box’ for Swiss kindergarteners has genitalia toys: will teach sexuality is pleasurable
Kindergarten children in Basel, Switzerland will be presented this year with fabric models of human genitalia in a “sex box” to teach them that “contacting body parts can be pleasurable.”
The kit for teachers to give sex-education lessons to primary school children uses models and recommends having children massage each other or to rub themselves with warm sand bags, accompanied by soft music….
I can no longer deny what I’ve long merely suspected: That many “progressive” educators use mandatory public school sex education specifically for the purpose of indoctrinating entire generations of children into being promiscuous as early as possible. Why? To cause the breakdown of the nuclear family, to pave the road for a Brave New World.
Yesterday, it only happened in fiction. Today, it happens in Switzerland. Tomorrow — coming to a school near you.
|
|
SteveW
Trad climber
The state of confusion
|
|
|
Aug 27, 2011 - 11:58pm PT
|
Too bad that Irene didn't cut the power off for BW. . . .
|
|
Vegasclimber
Trad climber
Las Vegas, NV.
|
|
|
Aug 28, 2011 - 12:25am PT
|
|
|
survival
Big Wall climber
A Token of My Extreme
|
|
|
Aug 28, 2011 - 12:34am PT
|
Once you start down the slippery slope of teaching kids about the mechanics of sex, it will invariably (in some school districts at least) eventually lead to advocacy for sex. Combine that with the relentless drive to introduce sex ed at lower and lower grades, and you end up with what’s happening in Switzerland: Telling four-year-olds how pleasurable sex is and leading them in classroom activities that are tantamount to public masturbation:
BWA HA HA hahahaaa!!! Bookie is channeling Michelle Bitchman!!
*Birth = breathing = growing = hearing = seeing = learning = erection = school = lights = camera = public = masturbation = ACTION!!!
You're so right Bookie. People haven't figured sex out for the last 100,000 years. (Oooops sorry, the earth is only 6,000 years old)
Where ever did all these people come from without liberals teaching us how to masturbate in public?? BWA HA HA hahahaaaaa!!!!
Just look at all those folks beating off on the school bus in Switzerland!!!
|
|
Spider Savage
Mountain climber
SoCal
|
|
|
Aug 28, 2011 - 01:24am PT
|
Public Education = Socialist System
NO complaining unless you have the money for pay for your kids private education. Get busy.
|
|
bookworm
Social climber
Falls Church, VA
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Aug 28, 2011 - 06:12am PT
|
‘Sex box’ for Swiss kindergarteners has genitalia toys: will teach sexuality is pleasurable
Kindergarten children in Basel, Switzerland will be presented this year with fabric models of human genitalia in a “sex box” to teach them that “contacting body parts can be pleasurable.”
yep, i'm a troglodyte because i think it's inappropriate to 1) provide KINDERGARTENERS with "genitalia toys"; 2) encourage KINDERGARTENERS to seek/practice sexual pleasure; 3) allow adults i barely know to "teach" KINDERGARTENERS about sexual pleasure
if your neighbor was offering the same "education" and sharing the same "toys" you'd have him arrested for child abuse; however, since these people are "educators" (whatever that means), you're willing to abdicate your responsibilities as parents or, worse, your responsibilities as citizens while you send your own children to private school
"'tis new to you"
|
|
survival
Big Wall climber
A Token of My Extreme
|
|
|
Sep 13, 2011 - 11:09am PT
|
Get a grip dude.
How about something important like: What Conservatism Hath Wrought
*Conservative: genital mutilation
*Conservative: girls married off as children
*Conservative: Girls beaten for trying to go to school
*Conservative: Girls schools burned down
You know, important stuff....
|
|
bookworm
Social climber
Falls Church, VA
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Sep 13, 2011 - 07:32pm PT
|
what liberalism hath wrought:
Fourth-Trimester Abortion
September 13, 2011 10:43 A.M.
By Mark Steyn
From the Court of Queen’s Bench (the appellate court) in Alberta:
The Wetaskiwin, Alta., woman convicted of infanticide for killing her newborn son, was given a three-year suspended sentence Friday by an Edmonton Court of Queen’s Bench judge.
Katrina Effert was 19 on April 13, 2005, when she secretly gave birth in her parents’ home, strangled the baby boy with her underwear and threw the body over a fence into a neighbour’s yard…
Effert will have to abide by conditions for the next three years but she won’t spend time behind bars for strangling her newborn son.
Indeed. As Judge Joanne Veit puts it:
“While many Canadians undoubtedly view abortion as a less than ideal solution to unprotected sex and unwanted pregnancy, they generally understand, accept and sympathize with the onerous demands pregnancy and childbirth exact from mothers, especially mothers without support,” she writes… “Naturally, Canadians are grieved by an infant’s death, especially at the hands of the infant’s mother, but Canadians also grieve for the mother.”
Gotcha. So a superior court judge in a relatively civilized jurisdiction is happy to extend the principles underlying legalized abortion in order to mitigate the killing of a legal person — that’s to say, someone who has managed to make it to the post-fetus stage. How long do those mitigating factors apply? I mean, “onerous demands”-wise, the first month of a newborn’s life is no picnic for the mother. How about six months in? The terrible twos?
Speaking of “onerous demands,” suppose you’re a “mother without support” who’s also got an elderly relative around with an “onerous” chronic condition also making inroads into your time?
And in what sense was Miss Effert a “mother without support”? She lived at home with her parents, who provided her with food and shelter. How smoothly the slick euphemisms — “accept and sympathize . . . onerous demands” — lubricate the slippery slope.
go ahead, google obama and the born alive infant protection act--i dare you
"tis new to you"
|
|
survival
Big Wall climber
A Token of My Extreme
|
|
|
Sep 13, 2011 - 09:10pm PT
|
Get a grip dude.
How about something important like: What Conservatism Hath Wrought
*Conservative: genital mutilation
*Conservative: girls married off as children
*Conservative: Girls beaten for trying to go to school
*Conservative: Girls schools burned down
You know, important stuff....
|
|
TGT
Social climber
So Cal
|
|
|
Sep 13, 2011 - 09:14pm PT
|
you left out the Muslim part.
|
|
survival
Big Wall climber
A Token of My Extreme
|
|
|
Sep 13, 2011 - 09:18pm PT
|
you left out the Muslim part.
So? The point is that old bookie seems to think that Switzerland is Satan's realm all of a sudden.
|
|
Gary
climber
From the City That Dreams
|
|
|
Nov 16, 2011 - 09:58am PT
|
bookworm, what's it like to be ruled by fear?
|
|
Tony Bird
climber
Northridge, CA
|
|
|
Nov 16, 2011 - 10:09am PT
|
i'd like to know whether bookworm has raised any kids of his own. his sensibilities belong in the 1950s.
|
|
Reilly
Mountain climber
The Other Monrovia- CA
|
|
|
Nov 16, 2011 - 10:16am PT
|
Isn't Switzerland well known for its myriad pederasts, rampant rapists, and
pervasive perverts of all colours?
|
|
bookworm
Social climber
Falls Church, VA
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Nov 16, 2011 - 10:38am PT
|
tony, i'd like to know if you have pictures of your mother and sister embracing...while wearing lingerie; or your wife and mother-in-law
or if you look forward to taking pictures of your wife and daughter embracing...while wearing lingerie...and if you would display them around your house
if not, why not? perhaps your "sensibilities" might encourage you to take a few snapshots of yourself and your father embracing...while wearing jockstraps...or yourself and your son? certainly, there's nothing to "fear", right?
prospero's response: "tis new to you"
|
|
Tony Bird
climber
Northridge, CA
|
|
|
Nov 16, 2011 - 11:18am PT
|
didn't answer my question, bookie, and i'll assume you haven't had kids of your own to raise.
today's kids are jaded about sex even before they reach puberty. you can thank various modern media for that, but primarily movies and the internet. if you have parental controls on there, you can bet they have friends who don't, and it really doesn't matter one way or the other. as with every generation, when kids come into their own sexuality they are faced with the dilemma of temptation versus responsibility, and perhaps they deal with it better than was done in less honest times.
the main reason hypocrisies like this rankle me is that our society does miserably in engaging young people and providing them with social structures to see them through this time. so-called primitive societies do much better, with realistic puberty/adulthood rites and traditions which have been tried and true from time immemorial. our society suffers from 2,000 years of christian negation of normal human sexuality. the best we can come up with? the senior prom. first big date. get laid! pregnant? oh, dear ...
|
|
karodrinker
Trad climber
San Jose, CA
|
|
|
Nov 16, 2011 - 11:23am PT
|
bookworm, i can only imagine you are a 68 year old virgin. educating youngsters is a good thing, keeping them ignorant...is to get them ready for the tea party.
|
|
Ghost
climber
A long way from where I started
|
|
|
Nov 16, 2011 - 11:24am PT
|
our society suffers from 2,000 years of christian negation of normal human sexuality.
No, Tony, you don't understand. There's this old guy in Rome who wears a dress and has never had any sex (well, not with a woman, anyway) in his life who knows what is best for you and your children. He says sex is bad, so you should listen to him.
How can you argue with that?
|
|
survival
Big Wall climber
A Token of My Extreme
|
|
|
Nov 16, 2011 - 11:28am PT
|
tony, i'd like to know if you have pictures of your mother and sister embracing...while wearing lingerie; or your wife and mother-in-law
Women should never embrace unless they are wearing burquas, or six layers of corderouy.
|
|
bookworm
Social climber
Falls Church, VA
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Nov 16, 2011 - 11:32am PT
|
no, i don't have kids
and you didn't answer my questions, either, which were actually questions
and where's the hypocrisy?
and do you really argue that sexual mores were less stringent before the advent of christianity, thereby ignoring at least 3,000 years of judaism, not to mention the countless other belief systems that sought to control man's sexual appetite? ever read plato or the five precepts of buddhism? and, out of curiosity, why do you single out christianity and ignore the medieval methods (i.e. female circumcision)of modern muslim societies? talk about "fear"
do you argue that kids should have free access to porn? do you allow your kids such freedom? do you suggest that porn is the best way for kids to learn how to deal with their emerging sexuality? sexting ok with you, too? will you encourage your kids to partake in such "explorations"?
i applaud celebrating the beauty and sexuality of older women, but, yeah, i'm creeped out by COMMERCIAL ADS that specifically portray a mother and daughter wearing lingerie in sexually suggestive poses
|
|
bookworm
Social climber
Falls Church, VA
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Nov 16, 2011 - 11:35am PT
|
ghost, obviously, you don't understand christianity, either, which says that sex is awesome but that we need to control our urges...and, again, why not any bigoted comments about muslims? coward
|
|
karodrinker
Trad climber
San Jose, CA
|
|
|
Nov 16, 2011 - 11:40am PT
|
christianity sucks dude. islam sucks too. as do all myths created to control humans.
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
|
Nov 16, 2011 - 11:45am PT
|
christianity sucks dude. islam sucks too. as do all myths created to control humans.
Then why are you trying to control humanity?
Saying do what you want and f*#k all those other systems is control too.
There's no escape from "control"
Heheh
|
|
karodrinker
Trad climber
San Jose, CA
|
|
|
Nov 16, 2011 - 11:52am PT
|
natural law, the only control that matters.
|
|
Ghost
climber
A long way from where I started
|
|
|
Nov 16, 2011 - 12:33pm PT
|
ghost, obviously, you don't understand christianity, either, which says that sex is awesome but that we need to control our urges...and, again, why not any bigoted comments about muslims? coward
Coward? I'm a coward because I don't make bigoted comments about muslims?
For what it's worth, the Muslim tradition seems to have an even more disturbing view of women and sex than the Christian one. (There, I said it, does that make me brave in your eyes?)
Now, about the other thing. You say christianity says "that sex is awesome." If that's true, I must have missed it in the bible. Can you point me to the right chapter and verse? I can remember things like it being okay to conquer people and make them slaves, and that I should put adulterers to death, and that if I get a wound in my testicles I can't enter the house of the lord, but I really don't remember "Sex is awesome."
Seriously, where in the bible does it say that sex is awesome?
|
|
bookworm
Social climber
Falls Church, VA
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Nov 16, 2011 - 02:09pm PT
|
the bible/christianity condemns sex outside of marriage; however, inside marriage, sex is celebrated as a sacred act of creation; the catholics, in particular, (and mormons, too, i think) promote a vigorous sex life within marriage
still waiting for those mother/daughter, mother-in-law/wife, father/son underwear pics from tony, survival, karo, etc...why aren't you guys posting up? i'm a neanderthal seeking enlightenment; help a fellow climber improve his "sensibilities"
|
|
healyje
Trad climber
Portland, Oregon
|
|
|
Nov 16, 2011 - 02:47pm PT
|
Some people live in a very fragile personal world...
|
|
bookworm
Social climber
Falls Church, VA
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Apr 26, 2012 - 09:30am PT
|
KING LEAR: Better thou/Hadst not been born than not to have pleased me better.
is there anything worse than a parent saying to a child, "i wish you had never been born"?
maybe the parent declaring so in a court of law...
http://www.weeklystandard.com/articles/blessing-curse_640524.html?page=1
MIRANDA: oh, brave new world that hath such people in it
PROSPERO: 'tis new to thee
"wrongful birth"?
winston smith is dead
|
|
Port
Trad climber
San Diego
|
|
|
Apr 26, 2012 - 09:37am PT
|
^^^ Drama Queen.
|
|
survival
Big Wall climber
Terrapin Station
|
|
|
Apr 26, 2012 - 09:45am PT
|
OSLO, Norway (AP) — Facing terror with music, tens of thousands gathered in squares across Norway to sing a children's song that gunman Anders Behring Breivik claimed is being used to brainwash young Norwegians.
The defiant Facebook protest against the right-wing fanatic took place as survivors gave tearful testimony Thursday in his trial for the July 22 bombing-and-shooting rampage that killed 77 people, mostly teenagers.
Some 40,000 people converged at a central square in Oslo in the pouring rain to sing the 1970's song "Children of the Rainbow" — a Norwegian version of American folk music singer Pete Seeger's "Rainbow Race."
Later they were to lay roses on the steps of the courthouse in memory of those killed in the massacre.
In testimony last week, Breivik mentioned the song as an example of how he believes "cultural Marxists" have infiltrated Norwegian schools, triggering a Facebook intiative for Thursday's protests.
Shocked by Breivik's lack of remorse for his massacre, Norwegians by and large have decided the best way to confront him is by demonstrating their commitment to everything he loathes.
In court Thursday, people who survived Breivik's car bomb in Olso's government district gave emotional testimony as he listened expressionless.
|
|
survival
Big Wall climber
Terrapin Station
|
|
|
Apr 26, 2012 - 09:46am PT
|
OSLO, Norway (AP) — Facing terror with music, tens of thousands gathered in squares across Norway to sing a children's song that gunman Anders Behring Breivik claimed is being used to brainwash young Norwegians.
The defiant Facebook protest against the right-wing fanatic took place as survivors gave tearful testimony Thursday in his trial for the July 22 bombing-and-shooting rampage that killed 77 people, mostly teenagers.
Some 40,000 people converged at a central square in Oslo in the pouring rain to sing the 1970's song "Children of the Rainbow" — a Norwegian version of American folk music singer Pete Seeger's "Rainbow Race."
Later they were to lay roses on the steps of the courthouse in memory of those killed in the massacre.
In testimony last week, Breivik mentioned the song as an example of how he believes "cultural Marxists" have infiltrated Norwegian schools, triggering a Facebook intiative for Thursday's protests.
Shocked by Breivik's lack of remorse for his massacre, Norwegians by and large have decided the best way to confront him is by demonstrating their commitment to everything he loathes.
In court Thursday, people who survived Breivik's car bomb in Olso's government district gave emotional testimony as he listened expressionless.
|
|
survival
Big Wall climber
Terrapin Station
|
|
|
Apr 26, 2012 - 09:46am PT
|
OSLO, Norway (AP) — Facing terror with music, tens of thousands gathered in squares across Norway to sing a children's song that gunman Anders Behring Breivik claimed is being used to brainwash young Norwegians.
The defiant Facebook protest against the right-wing fanatic took place as survivors gave tearful testimony Thursday in his trial for the July 22 bombing-and-shooting rampage that killed 77 people, mostly teenagers.
Some 40,000 people converged at a central square in Oslo in the pouring rain to sing the 1970's song "Children of the Rainbow" — a Norwegian version of American folk music singer Pete Seeger's "Rainbow Race."
Later they were to lay roses on the steps of the courthouse in memory of those killed in the massacre.
In testimony last week, Breivik mentioned the song as an example of how he believes "cultural Marxists" have infiltrated Norwegian schools, triggering a Facebook intiative for Thursday's protests.
Shocked by Breivik's lack of remorse for his massacre, Norwegians by and large have decided the best way to confront him is by demonstrating their commitment to everything he loathes.
In court Thursday, people who survived Breivik's car bomb in Olso's government district gave emotional testimony as he listened expressionless.
|
|
bookworm
Social climber
Falls Church, VA
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - May 10, 2012 - 06:42am PT
|
http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/sideshow/viewing-child-pornography-not-crime-according-york-court-165025919.html?fb_action_ids=10151697180740704,10151697173660704,3415838393237,3212439764359,3212434804235&fb_action_types=news.reads&fb_ref=fb_opengraph,type:read,user:ap3nJFYwrLYUYaMg2WcCgoYBUGc,type:read,user:hW5qjdZTXU57Nz6HpCh6ItvTmRE,type:read,user:sVbaqS-UHPkSF3zt2f-ryand2DE&fb_source=other_multiline&code=AQCZRhRtkFCs_byWCQtkH-mHxhxy9Ke7p4hDNxqvN2zo-QHtXUtPtzoenmcFzL4Oj74ur_81KXDiJBiCLgot83JdoawNpjg4zG6OZbo0TfR2Ouec_EXNiEy0WPPLqo38BWSHG7qs9T8jxlxVYyLtdlnfLmu9iH5mSFhSJ-zAEBs_1IhRJnH8bVK8LrbjFDwM8DY#_=_
miranda: oh, brave new world that has such men in it.
prospero: 'tis new to thee.
|
|
survival
Big Wall climber
Terrapin Station
|
|
|
May 10, 2012 - 10:14am PT
|
Great Conservatives of the last century. Please God, Bring Us More of these brave, stalwart and visionary men to save us from liberals!!
|
|
survival
Big Wall climber
Terrapin Station
|
|
|
May 10, 2012 - 11:50am PT
|
There's this old guy in Rome who wears a dress and has never had any sex (well, not with a woman, anyway) in his life who knows what is best for you and your children. He says sex is bad, so you should listen to him.
Ghost for the win, again....
And since nookie, er, I mean bookie wants to see a picture of my sister:
It's ok man, you may pray for her.
|
|
survival
Big Wall climber
Terrapin Station
|
|
|
May 10, 2012 - 12:23pm PT
|
|
|
bookworm
Social climber
Falls Church, VA
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Jun 7, 2012 - 08:49am PT
|
barry refuses to allow lech walesa (the man who helped bring down the soviet union--union of soviet SOCIALIST republics--to accept jan karski's medal of freedom
barry claims walesa is "too political"
walesa was arrested by the soviets for "POLITICAL dissent"
barry honors dolores huerta with a medal of freedom on the same day he honors karksi
huerta is the honorary chair of the democratic SOCIALISTS of america
winston smith is dead
|
|
survival
Big Wall climber
Terrapin Station
|
|
|
Nov 29, 2012 - 12:26pm PT
|
oh, brave new world that has such men in it
|
|
bookworm
Social climber
Falls Church, VA
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Feb 20, 2013 - 06:48am PT
|
"But the Netherlands decided in 1996 that street prostitution was a decent way to earn money and created several ‘tolerance zones’ for men to safely rent a vagina, anus or mouth for a few minutes."
here's the whole article: http://www.spectator.co.uk/features/8835071/flesh-for-sale/
miranda: oh, brave new world that has such people in it
prospero: 'tis new to thee
|
|
dirtbag
climber
|
|
|
Feb 20, 2013 - 08:18am PT
|
zzzzzzz...
|
|
Jaybro
Social climber
Wolf City, Wyoming
|
|
|
Feb 20, 2013 - 08:52am PT
|
no, i don't have kids Gee there's a surprise!
And Lech Walsea is polish not soviet/Russian duh!
|
|
apogee
climber
Technically expert, safe belayer, can lead if easy
|
|
|
Feb 20, 2013 - 11:07am PT
|
Man, you're really pissed off this morning, aren't you, booky?
What substance did you run out of yesterday?
|
|
kennyt
climber
Woodfords,California
|
|
|
Feb 20, 2013 - 11:22am PT
|
|
|
bookworm
Social climber
Falls Church, VA
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Apr 5, 2013 - 01:47pm PT
|
http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/video-planned-parenthood-official-argues-right-post-birth-abortion_712198.html
see that, f, "post birth abortion"
remember our little spat a few years back when you were whining about waterboarding and defending abortion? i offered an opportunity to demonstrate the courage of your convictions: i'll let you waterboard me, if you let me abort you (and you can go first)
you replied, "i can't be aborted because i've already been born"
well, according to planned parenthood (an organization i'm sure you support unconditionally) you can still be aborted
so, i make my offer again...c'mon, f, here's your chance to prove waterboarding is "torture" on a loathsome conservative...all i get to do is eliminate a "clump of cells" that i find inconvenient
miranda: oh, brave new world that has such men in it
prospero: 'tis new to thee
|
|
survival
Big Wall climber
Terrapin Station
|
|
That David Icke guy is the same one who believes in Lizard People controlling the world.
Where do you stand on that one Book? Or New World Order?
Do you believe Lizard People are running the planet? Geez, the real humans that are running the world from one time zone to the next aren't f*^%ed up enough, so we invent lizard people?
|
|
BASE104
Social climber
An Oil Field
|
|
The hard right evangelical part of conservatism (rather than basic conservative political values) is going to spell the doom of the Republicans as this new generation starts voting.
They are sort of the U.S. version of the Muslim Brotherhood.
|
|
hillrat
Trad climber
reno, nv
|
|
huh, lacking much in the way of reasonable explanations of sex from my parents (other than dont do it til yer older) i learned quite a bit from porn. lucky i never got anyone pregnant til now, i guess. anyway, theres no such conspiracy as trying to dissolve the "traditional american family". now contrails and obamb as the antichrist on the other hand...
work sucks.
|
|
hillrat
Trad climber
reno, nv
|
|
theres a connection here- the aliens brought color tv to roswell, which was subsequently used to brainwash the people with programs like V, where an alien race of lizard people try to take over earth. only we were saved by a bigfoot/godzilla partnership when the prez denounced his stated faith and declared jihad on the infidel lizards because the wanted to teach sex ed using fabric vaginas. what, you missed that episode?
|
|
bookworm
Social climber
Falls Church, VA
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Apr 13, 2013 - 06:13pm PT
|
here's a scotus description of f's most valued "right":
Most common is the first-trimester “suction curettage,” in which the “physician” vacuums the unwanted “embryonic tissue” from the womb. By the time the second trimester is reached, this “tissue” has matured into the unmistakable shape of a child. Thus the “dilation and evacuation” procedure is often called for.
Employed millions of times in this most civilized country over the last half century, “D&E,” the court explained, involves the “physician’s” use of forceps “to tear apart” the “fetus” by “ripping” it from the cervix and then “evacuating the fetus piece by piece . . . until it has been completely removed” from the mother. Often, the justices observed, the D&E “physician” finds it more congenial to “kill the fetus a day or two before performing the surgical evacuation,” since “medical” experience has shown that, “once dead . . . the fetus’ body will soften,” becoming “easier” to dice and remove. Oh, another helpful tip: “Rotating the fetus as it is being pulled decreases the odds of dismemberment.”
By the time Carhart was decided, Roe v. Wade had been on the books for over a generation — the generation, to be more specific, that is now ruling the roost. It goes without saying — for we wouldn’t want to say it — that, in a nation that has absorbed this generation’s preening “values,” D&E already enjoyed the stamp of judicial approval. The only question before the Carhart Court was whether “partial birth” abortion — “intact D&E” — was beyond the pale.
This “medical procedure” is triggered by an advanced stage of maturation, in which the child’s well-developed head tends to “lodge in the cervix.” Relying on the instruction of Martin Haskell, another experienced abortionist, the justices related:
The right-handed surgeon slides the fingers of the left [hand] along the back of the fetus and “hooks” the shoulders of the fetus with the index and ring fingers (palm down). While maintaining this tension, lifting the cervix and applying traction to the shoulders with the fingers of the left hand, the surgeon takes a pair of blunt curved Metzenbaum scissors in the right hand. He carefully advances the tip, curved down, along the spine and under his middle finger until he feels it contact the base of the skull under the tip of his middle finger.
The surgeon then forces the scissors into the base of the skull. . . . He spreads the scissors to enlarge the opening. . . . The surgeon [then] removes the scissors and introduces a suction catheter into this hole and evacuates the skull contents. With the catheter still in place, he applies traction to the fetus, removing it completely from the patient.
“Evacuates the skull contents” may be more bracing than “snip,” but it doesn’t quite do justice to the process and the frightful insouciance behind it. That was left to a nurse who had watched Haskell perform the “procedure” on a six-month-old “however way you want to describe it.” She recalled that, once all but the head had been delivered,
the baby’s little fingers were clasping and unclasping, and his little feet were kicking. Then the doctor stuck the scissors in the back of his head, and the baby’s arms jerked out, like a startle reaction, like a flinch, like a baby does when he thinks he is going to fall.
The doctor opened up the scissors, stuck a high-powered suction tube into the opening, and sucked the baby’s brains out. Now the baby went completely limp. . . . He cut the umbilical cord and delivered the placenta. He threw the baby in a pan, along with the placenta and the instruments he had just used."
miranda: oh, brave new world that has such men in it
prospero: 'tis new to thee
|
|
bookworm
Social climber
Falls Church, VA
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Apr 13, 2013 - 06:19pm PT
|
here you go, f, more heroes of "choice" (Alberto Giubilini,
1,2; Francesca Minerva):
CONCLUSIONS
If criteria such as the costs (social, psychological, economic) for
the potential parents are good enough reasons for having an
abortion even when the fetus is healthy, if the moral status of
the newborn is the same as that of the infant and if neither has
any moral value by virtue of being a potential person, then the
same reasons which justify abortion should also justify the
killing of the potential person when it is at the stage of
a newborn.
Two considerations need to be added.
First, we do not put forward any claim about the moment
at which after-birth abortion would no longer be permissible, and
we do not think that in fact more than a few days would be
necessary for doctors to detect any abnormality in the child. In
cases where the after-birth abortion were requested for non-
medical reasons, we do not suggest any threshold, as it depends on
the neurological development of newborns, which is something
neurologists and psychologists would be able to assess.
Second, we do not claim that after-birth abortions are good
alternatives to abortion. Abortions at an early stage are the best
option, for both psychological and physical reasons. However, if
a disease has not been detected during the pregnancy, if some-
thing went wrong during the delivery, or if economical, social or
psychological circumstances change such that taking care of the
offspring becomes an unbearable burden on someone, then
people should be given the chance of not being forced to do
something they cannot afford.
my offer still stands;; let's see the courage of your convictions
|
|
survival
Big Wall climber
Terrapin Station
|
|
|
Apr 13, 2013 - 06:37pm PT
|
|
|
BASE104
Social climber
An Oil Field
|
|
|
Apr 13, 2013 - 06:51pm PT
|
Bookwork nails it. The Republicans have a big problem with social issues. Previously that was the property of the liberals.
There may not be a Republican Party in twenty years. There will be a centrist offshoot that would gobble up the centrists in both parties, the only ones who actually get things done.
Seriously, the right is being torn to shreds from the evangelical voice which isn't shared by most Americans.
Who hear sets their DVR to catch every episode of "The 700 Club"?
Pat Robertson is mainly nuts. The only thing sensible he has said in as far as I can remember is about marijuana.
|
|
the Fet
climber
Tu-Tok-A-Nu-La
|
|
|
Apr 14, 2013 - 11:26am PT
|
That bumper sticker is hilarious!!!
You know right wingers are usually terrible at humor (too mean spirited). But that one is really cracking me up. Of course it was unintended, but that makes it ever MORE funny!
|
|
survival
Big Wall climber
Terrapin Station
|
|
|
Apr 16, 2013 - 12:25pm PT
|
That's right, take us to church and PREACH IT brother!
|
|
survival
Big Wall climber
Terrapin Station
|
|
|
Apr 16, 2013 - 12:28pm PT
|
|
|
bookworm
Social climber
Falls Church, VA
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Apr 17, 2013 - 09:37am PT
|
here's some more casual reading, f; maybe you can whisper these sweet nothings to your wife...or enjoy a page or two over breakfast...or simply bask in the glorious results of your most prized "constitutional right":
http://www.phila.gov/districtattorney/pdfs/grandjurywomensmedical.pdf
miranda: oh, brave new world that has such men [like f] in it
prospero: 'tis new to thee
|
|
bookworm
Social climber
Falls Church, VA
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Apr 26, 2013 - 02:11pm PT
|
wait, isn't "viability" the basis of the whole pro-abortion position? because the "fetuses" are not "viable" outside the womb, then they're not really babies...
well,
http://cnsnews.com/news/article/nyt-calls-babies-born-alive-during-gosnells-abortions-viable-fetuses
once again, f, i offer my challenge...according to nyt, you are a "viable fetus" and, as you so vehemently declare, fetuses can and should be aborted if they are "inconvenient"
you waterboard me; then, i abort you
afterwards, we can reaffirm the constitutionality of our positions...we'll accept your affirmation in writing
miranda: oh, brave new world that has such men [like f] in it
prospero: 'tis new to thee
|
|
bookworm
Social climber
Falls Church, VA
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Apr 30, 2013 - 09:26am PT
|
legal, safe, and rare?
well, f, i guess one out of three ain't bad...at least, it's good enough for you
http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2013/04/29/gosnells-abortion-atrocities-no-aberration-column/2122235/
miranda: oh, brave new world that has such ['viable fetuses', like f, who thinks i'm "sick"] in it
prospero: 'tis new to thee
|
|
bookworm
Social climber
Falls Church, VA
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - May 2, 2013 - 12:48pm PT
|
oh, the irony...
"A 19-year-old McCaskey East High School student was charged with concealing the death of a child after she reportedly gave birth to a fetus that was found dead in a school bathroom Tuesday night."
for you libs, whose moral relativity prevents you from understanding, allow me to point it out:
how can somebody be charged with "concealing the death of a CHILD" if she only gave birth to a "fetus"?
miranda: oh, brave new world that has such men in it
prospero: 'tis new to thee
|
|
survival
Big Wall climber
Terrapin Station
|
|
|
|
bookworm
Social climber
Falls Church, VA
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - May 10, 2013 - 09:50am PT
|
what liberalism hath wrought:
so, the ohio kidnapper and child rapist canNOT be executed for kidnapping, imprisoning and raping at least three girls for 10 years based on the scotus' "evolving standards of decency" decision
how's that for a war on women (and children)? i guess libs don't consider his actions "torture"
wait, the prosecutor is considering the death penalty? because the kidnapper/racist beat one of the girls and caused her to have a miscarriage?
"2903.01 Aggravated murder.
(A) No person shall purposely, and with prior calculation and design, cause the death of another or the unlawful termination of another’s pregnancy…
(F) Whoever violates this section is guilty of aggravated murder, and shall be punished as provided in section 2929.02 of the Revised Code."
wait, how can one "cause the death of another" when the other is not alive but simply a fetus? how can one commit "aggravated MURDER" against a "clump of cells"?
wait, doesn't this mean the fetus is given more protection than the woman carrying the fetus? see, it's "evolved decency" to spare a man who kidnaps, imprisons, and rapes a woman for 10 years and to execute a man who terminates a fetus
where's the outrage?
miranda: oh, brave new world that has such men in it
prospero: 'tis new to thee
winston smith is dead
|
|
bookworm
Social climber
Falls Church, VA
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - May 14, 2013 - 09:40am PT
|
hey, rsin, they'll also believe you when you tell them the government can/will solve all their problems
gosnell GUILTY on three counts of PREMEDITATED murder...
BOOM!
and now faces a possible death sentence for MURDERING two people that f believes weren't alive
oh, the irony...
miranda: oh, brave new world that has such men in it
prospero: 'tis new to thee
|
|
survival
Big Wall climber
Terrapin Station
|
|
|
May 14, 2013 - 12:00pm PT
|
|
|
dirtbag
climber
|
|
|
May 31, 2013 - 10:38am PT
|
Lol, the only one interest in bookie's sobfest is bookie.
|
|
Jaybro
Social climber
Wolf City, Wyoming
|
|
Access to the clif notes of the Tempsest in the wrong hands is a tedious thing
|
|
dirtbag
climber
|
|
|
Feb 13, 2014 - 07:44pm PT
|
^^^^coward
|
|
bluering
Trad climber
Santa Clara, CA
|
|
|
Feb 13, 2014 - 09:02pm PT
|
Why? To cause the breakdown of the nuclear family, to pave the road for a Brave New World.
Huxley and Orwill lived through, and tried to warn of the dangers of State-ism. Tolkien and C.S. Lewis also dove into it in a more indirect manner.
These guys lived through the scourge of totalitarianism firsthand. They witnessed how they State slowly grabs control (in Italy, Germany, and Eastern Europe) and at first, convinces people how awesome it is, until the State can then assume ultimate control. Works the same way every time, whether it's Socialism, Fascism, or Communism.
The common denominators are repressing individualism, personal liberty, and assuming control of the economy.
Regarding the erosion of the cohesive (nuclear) family unit independent from the State, this is a trademark strictly from the Socialist/Communist playbook. This is how they erode the will of the people to become reliant on the State as 'the Family'.
Don't believe me? Read the Communist Manifesto and the Venona Papers. Their explicit goals, amongst others, were to do away with a common religion (an "opiate of the masses" that conjoined people), and to disintegrate the nuclear family. Both things, family and religion, were impediments to full State control of an independent, free people.
I've said it before, I'll say it again, I hate Commies and State-ists.
If you can't see that this is happening now, and the goal of our current leaders, you're either stupid or a commie.
|
|
Norton
Social climber
the Wastelands
|
|
|
Feb 13, 2014 - 09:05pm PT
|
coward
|
|
bluering
Trad climber
Santa Clara, CA
|
|
|
Feb 13, 2014 - 09:10pm PT
|
Why am I a coward, Norton? Because you commies are being exposeed for what you are?
Progressive is a synonym for Communist/Socialist. You guys just know that you had to change your name to keep the bullsh#t-train going.
The game is over. You think by calling me a name I will be silent?
Really?
|
|
Norton
Social climber
the Wastelands
|
|
|
Feb 13, 2014 - 09:13pm PT
|
odd you would think I was talking about you Bluering
by the way, you get to call me a "commie" when you serve this country in a fuking jungle as I did 40 years ago
|
|
Yak-Chik
Trad climber
Phoenix
|
|
|
Feb 13, 2014 - 09:14pm PT
|
Not sure if it is such an onerous demand putting up with
Liberals emotional-tone-deafness for murdering their own children.
One less Liberal right? The science is still open if they are
unconsciously compelled by their bad genes to self limit their
populations with abortions.
|
|
bluering
Trad climber
Santa Clara, CA
|
|
|
Feb 13, 2014 - 09:21pm PT
|
by the way, you get to call me a "commie" when you serve this country in a fuking jungle as I did 40 years ago
No, I can call out your policy whenever I want BECAUSE we are still free to do so. But your service is obviously to be respected.
Unlike John Kerry.
This isn't a pissing match to who served more BITD. It's more of a discussion of our current trajectory.
|
|
bluering
Trad climber
Santa Clara, CA
|
|
|
Feb 13, 2014 - 09:31pm PT
|
Not sure if it is such an onerous demand putting up with
Liberals emotional-tone-deafness for murdering their own children.
One less Liberal right? The science is still open if they are
unconsciously compelled by their bad genes to self limit their
populations with abortions.
Well, that is one way to look at it. I smell sarcasm and cynicism.
Ask a liberal "pro-choice" person what they'd think if their Mom chose to have a second-term abortion on them?
The bigger picture is a disregard for the most innocent among us. Killing them. Babies.
Many people are running through hoops to adopt babies and children. There are "choices" that are better than slaughtering little baby lives.
|
|
bluering
Trad climber
Santa Clara, CA
|
|
|
Feb 13, 2014 - 10:48pm PT
|
Huxley and Orwill lived through, and tried to warn of the dangers of Right Wing Authoritarism. Tolkien and C.S. Lewis also dove into it in a more indirect manner.
These guys lived through the scourge of Right wing totalitarianism firsthand. They witnessed how they State slowly grabs control (in Italy, Germany, and Eastern Europe) and at first, convinces people how awesome it is, until the State can then assume ultimate control. Works the same way every time, whether it's capitalism, Fascism, or Right Wing Stalinist Communism.
The common denominators is the Right Wing repressing individualism, personal liberty, and assuming control of the economy.
You're entitled to your own crazy rantings, but most literary scholars would disagree with your assessment of their works. As the authors would themselves.
Have read their works? Do you think you're clever for wrongly distorting their intents?
It's rather easy to pull bullshit out of your ass, but it doesn't make it accurate.
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
|
Feb 13, 2014 - 11:00pm PT
|
Blue
You do know ....
That 9 times out of 10 Dr F is always wrong ......
|
|
bluering
Trad climber
Santa Clara, CA
|
|
|
Feb 13, 2014 - 11:04pm PT
|
I understand this, Werner. But I dislike it when people distort somewhat classical works of modern literature.
I won't let it stand.
|
|
bluering
Trad climber
Santa Clara, CA
|
|
|
Feb 13, 2014 - 11:17pm PT
|
Yeah, I never watch that show. I've seen it briefly, and turned it off.
It's social programming.
|
|
dirtbag
climber
|
|
|
Feb 13, 2014 - 11:20pm PT
|
Thanks for the laughs!
|
|
Fat Dad
Trad climber
Los Angeles, CA
|
|
|
Feb 14, 2014 - 12:46am PT
|
No distortion blue. Dr. Fs assessment of OrwEll is spot on. Lit major at UCLA and about a hair breathes awaynfrom going intoma doctorate program, so I think I'm pretty well read.
BTW, don't mistake the right's free market approach as an example of their claimed belief in a small, less restrictive government. Sure they like little regulation of business but they favor less individual rights, such broader search and seizures, eliminating Miranda rights, a woman's right to choose, forcing school prayer, the desth penalty. Sounds big brotherish to me.
|
|
bookworm
Social climber
Falls Church, VA
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Feb 17, 2014 - 08:20am PT
|
and so it begins...
http://touch.latimes.com/#section/-1/article/p2p-79305983/
now where do i begin? with my old pal, f, of course
"the Right Wingers that rule by totalitarism, including Russian and Red Chinese Communism"
stalin and mao were right-wingers? i swear, f, i think you're just having fun because nobody could be that idiotic (the ucla-indoctrinated, aside)... but i'm resisting the urge to educate you because i know it will be a waste time
"Lit major at UCLA [that explains everything] and about a hair breathes awaynfrom going intoma doctorate program, so I think I'm pretty well read"
i'll assume you were drunk typing... still, you have another think coming:
favor less individual rights: actually, it's FEWER rights (and LESS freedom), but i digress...it's right-wingers who fight to keep our rights--to bear arms, to speak/think/worship freely, to encourage the press to challenge power, etc...libs, on the other hand, want to limit these rights...libs want to eliminate gun ownership (as did stalin, mao, and hitler); libs have implemented speech codes on college campuses and invent new words to hide their intents (as did stalin, mao, and hitler) such as "reproductive health" to refer to killing babies, "leading from behind" to color barry's cowardice, "job lock" to excuse barrycare's deincentivizing work for greater government largesse, and claiming any and all criticism of barry is "racist"...it's also barry who avoids/restricts/ abuses the press
broader search and seizures and eliminating Miranda rights: it's conservatives rand paul, ted cruz, and mike lee who are protesting barry's expansion of the patriot act and it's barry who is assassinating american citizens without declaring formal charges, acquiring arrest warrants, and allowing a fair and public trial
a woman's right to choose: i'll assume you want abortion any time under any circumstances so it's a matter of timing; conservatives absolutely believe every woman has a right to choose whether she has a baby; we simply believe she should make that choice BEFORE she has sex rather than after and that convenience is not a legitimate reason for terminating a life...concerning rape and the mother's health, it's still a matter of timing but different context; i believe life and "personhood" begin at conception so an abortion is killing a human being--an innocent human being...until you can prove conception does not instantly create a human being, i can't condone abortion at any time
forcing school prayer: actually, allowing school prayer; nobody can "force" you to pray; nobody can impose their beliefs on you unless you are too weak-minded even to ignore them...see no amount of reason, facts, truth, etc. are going to persuade you your entire world view is wrong (partly because you don't believe in right and wrong) so why are you so frightened by an elementary school child passing out christmas cards to classmates or a school choir concert that highlights christmas carols or a sculpture of the 10 commandments on the courthouse lawn?
the desth penalty: actually, i'm opposed, but i do believe in "cruel and unusual punishment" for heinous crimes like raping and murdering a child...you libs want to make sure child rapists/murderers are comfortable in prison and allowed to vote...granted, there's nothing stalinist about that position; it's just absurd
by the way, "lit majors" (unlike english majors) don't believe that literature has any "meaning" so your support of f's meaning is tantamount to a direct refutation of all you've been taught (so maybe there is hope for you...)
|
|
dirtbag
climber
|
|
|
Feb 17, 2014 - 09:12am PT
|
.....zzzzz...
|
|
couchmaster
climber
pdx
|
|
|
Feb 17, 2014 - 09:19am PT
|
Haha, I have successfully resisted being troll into this thread and haven't posted anything....hahah!
|
|
dirtbag
climber
|
|
|
Feb 17, 2014 - 09:32am PT
|
You're a better man than I am.
For you!
|
|
philo
Trad climber
Is that light the end of the tunnel or a train?
|
|
|
Feb 17, 2014 - 11:13am PT
|
he common denominators are repressing individualism, personal liberty, and assuming control of the economy.
Hmmm sounds like the Republican agenda to me.
|
|
bookworm
Social climber
Falls Church, VA
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Feb 22, 2014 - 08:19am PT
|
my favorite: "You take advantage of a national disaster such as an economic collapse or an attack to demonize your opponents and push your agenda. You use these events to strike fear into the population in an attempt to scare people into voting for you and your cause. It’s all about fear and scare tactics."
""don't let a crisis go to waste"...Rahm Emmanuel...barry's first chief of staff...now, f, explain how both he and barry are tea party advocates
ok, back to business:
“What really bothered me is, the whole idea is that at a liberal arts college, we need to be hearing a diversity of opinion,”
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/371625/attacking-diversity-thought-jonah-goldberg
miranda: oh, brave new world that has such men in it
prospero: 'tis new to thee
|
|
bookworm
Social climber
Falls Church, VA
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Feb 27, 2014 - 06:48am PT
|
another victory for "reproductive rights":
http://cnsnews.com/news/article/michael-w-chapman/mississippi-72-babies-aborted-are-black
i'm sure you're very proud, f; you're protecting thousands of black babies from the horrors of voter id laws, the despair of job lock, the burden of paying for their own birth control, the pain and suffering from the war on women, and the shame of growing up in a racist nation...i expect you'll be doubling your monthly contribution to planned parenthood
miranda: oh, brave new world that has such me in it
prospero: 'tis new to thee
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
|
Feb 27, 2014 - 07:58am PT
|
How did Obama take advantage of some (unspecified) crisis?
He hopped onto the coattails of Bush's and used them to yet further extend government power over the lives of everyday Americans.
Which one?
You name it. How about 9/11 for a start. How about recession? Banking meltdown? Pick your poison!
What did he do?
Cleverly, he promised very specific "change" on a host of levels. Then, once elected, the only "change" he implemented was to oversee much, much MORE of EXACTLY the same crap as we got with Bush, and for the EXACT same motivations:
** Big government and ever-increasing spending: "We've got to spend some money now to pull us out of this recession. But as soon as we're out of this recession, we've got to get serious about starting to live within our means, instead of leaving debt for our children and our grandchildren and our great-grandchildren." (Is this the same guy that refused to negotiate in ANY way with Republicans concerned to reduce spending before raising the debt limit? Is this the guy that has now FAR outspent even Bush, and he's not done yet!?!)
** Corporations suckling at the teat? Business as usual. No change in sight.
** Massive and inordinate military spending. http://www.freedomworks.org/content/president-obama-not-actually-cutting-military-spending-he-should
** Continuation of futile and even illegal wars: "If we have not gotten our troops out by the time I am president, it is the first thing I will do. I will get our troops home, we will end this war. You can take that to the bank." All I can take to the bank under Obama is LESS.
** Guantanamo: "We will close the detention camp in Guantanamo Bay, the location of so many of the worst constitutional abuses in recent years." Where was the executive action? Where was the whole-Congress Democratic majority in getting this done?
** Domestic spying: "We reject the use of national security letters to spy on citizens who are not suspected of a crime" Apparently "reject" actually means "embrace" in the Obamactionary.
** The Patriot Act: "We will revisit the Patriot Act and overturn unconstitutional executive decisions issued during the past eight years." Where was an executive action? Where was the Democratic Congress in getting this done?
** Habeas corpus: "We don’t always catch the right person. We may think this is Mohammed the terrorist, it might be Mohammed the cab driver. You might think it's Barack the bomb thrower, but it's Barack the guy running for president. So the reason that you have this principle [habeas corpus] is not to be soft on terrorism, it's because that’s who we are. That's what we're protecting." Okay, so where IS it?
** FOIA requests: "The Freedom of Information Act should be administered with a clear presumption: In the face of doubt, openness prevails... In responding to requests under the FOIA, executive branch agencies should act promptly and in a spirit of cooperation, recognizing that such agencies are servants of the public." Oh, wow! Seriously?
** Tracking of citizens: "We reject the tracking of citizens who do nothing more than protest a misguided war." No, instead "we" FULLY support the tracking of EVERYBODY at a scope not imagined before in human history! This is another case where in Obama's "dictionary," the word "reject" really means "embrace."
** Warrantless wiretapping: "We will review the current Administration’s warrantless wiretapping program." And, apparently, after review, "we" will find it just FAB and want to extend it even further into the lives of Americans, and then LIE about what we're doing until we get caught at it (see the following item).
** Whistleblowers: "Often the best source about waste, fraud and abuse in government is an existing government employee committed to public integrity and willing to speak out. Such acts of courage and patriotism . . . should be encouraged rather than stifled." Uhhh... the name Snowden come to mind?
** Anybody prosecuted or imprisoned for the mortgage meltdown debacle? Nope!
** Tax increases? "I can make a firm pledge. Under my plan, no family making less than $250,000 a year will see any form of tax increase. Not your income tax, not your payroll tax, not your capital gains taxes, not any of your taxes." Okay, flat out LIE! Even Obamacare was "legalized" by being called a "tax."
** Government transparency? "My administration is committed to creating an unprecedented level of openness in government." Uhh... it is to laugh (or cry).
And, keep in mind that when Obama was elected, the Democrats owned Congress and only extended their majority in both houses. For all of his presidency, Democrats have had the majority in the Senate, and for most of his presidency, Democrats have had a majority in the House. So, you can't blame Congress for Obama's failures, lies, and broken promises. HIS party OWNED the government, and at the very time when he enjoyed an unprecedented honeymoon period with Americans!
How did it work out?
Well, history doesn't yet have a solid "take," but the initial results strongly suggest: It is the SUCK!
The only "change" we got was to swirl a bit farther down the vortex.
|
|
survival
Big Wall climber
Terrapin Station
|
|
|
Feb 27, 2014 - 09:33am PT
|
|
|
survival
Big Wall climber
Terrapin Station
|
|
|
Feb 27, 2014 - 10:20am PT
|
He doesn't want to engage you, he only wants to preach to you.
|
|
Reilly
Mountain climber
The Other Monrovia- CA
|
|
|
Feb 27, 2014 - 10:34am PT
|
This is a Shakespeare thread? I thought it was about Huxley.
StuporTopo can get so confusing.
|
|
survival
Big Wall climber
Terrapin Station
|
|
|
Feb 27, 2014 - 10:53am PT
|
and for most of his presidency, Democrats have had a majority in the House.
Obama was elected in 2008. He took office in January of 2009. Republicans took control of the house in 2010. It is now 2014. How does that even remotely equal "most of his presidency?"
|
|
survival
Big Wall climber
Terrapin Station
|
|
|
Feb 28, 2014 - 01:46pm PT
|
|
|
Byran
climber
San Jose, CA
|
|
|
Feb 28, 2014 - 02:00pm PT
|
After trying to "claim" George Orwell and other famous authors for the side of right-wing America (and being challenged by Dr F), bluering wrote
most literary scholars would disagree with your assessment of their works. As the authors would themselves. -bluering But what if I told you that George Orwell was one of the most famous socialists of the 20th century, that he was a member of socialist groups, fought alongside communists in the Spanish Civil War, and believed himself to be a "democratic socialist"? What if I told you that Orwell would be in agreement with Dr F that It's always the Right Wingers that rule by totalitarism, including Russian and Red Chinese Communism, they were the opposite of anything liberal - Dr F After all, in a preface to Animal Farm, Orwell wrote
nothing has contributed so much to the corruption of the original idea of Socialism as the belief that Russia is a Socialist country - George Orwell and from The Road to Wigan Pier
The hoary legend of Communism leading to Fascism. ... The element of truth in it is this: that the appearance of Communist activity warns the ruling class that democratic Labour Parties are no longer capable of holding the working class in check, and that capitalist dictatorship must assume another form if it is to survive. - Orwell Or if that's not blunt enough for you, how about
please notice that I am arguing for Socialism, not against it. - Orwell So just how are literary scholars supposed to interpret these words, in your opinion? Or perhaps you've just been engaged in a little bit of doublethink?
Edited to note:
I'm not trying to "claim" George Orwell as a Democrat, just to be clear. There is little doubt he would have many critical things to say about the Obama administration and American partisanship in general. Just pointing out that were he alive today, he would be raked over the coals by Fox News and conservative Christians as a 'radical Commie ideologue'. But since he is not alive, right-wingers have instead opted for the 'revisionary history' route. Conservative bloggers and Glenn Beck pull his quotes out of context and public schools teach Animal Farm to children as a sort of Cold War narrative about the triumph of capitalism in America and evil failures of communist Russia. It so richly ironic and absolutely absurd that the works of Orwell should be appropriated in such an Orwellian way; one can't help but laugh.
|
|
survival
Big Wall climber
Terrapin Station
|
|
|
Feb 28, 2014 - 02:02pm PT
|
Don't sugarcoat it for him Bryan!
|
|
bluering
Trad climber
Santa Clara, CA
|
|
Bryan, you are distorting "right-wing" to mean that all conservatives are "right-wing", and therefore, fascists because fascists are right-wing.
That would be like me calling all Dems, commies.
There are gradations to political philosophy.
George Orwell would be a conservative independent if he were alive today...
|
|
HighDesertDJ
Trad climber
|
|
bluering said That would be like me calling all Dems, commies.
Well thank god that never happens.
|
|
bluering
Trad climber
Santa Clara, CA
|
|
An anarchist in the late 1920s, by the 1930s he had begun to consider himself a socialist. In 1936, he was commissioned to write an account of poverty among unemployed miners in northern England, which resulted in 'The Road to Wigan Pier' (1937). Late in 1936, Orwell travelled to Spain to fight for the Republicans against Franco's Nationalists. He was forced to flee in fear of his life from Soviet-backed communists who were suppressing revolutionary socialist dissenters. The experience turned him into a lifelong anti-Stalinist.
Between 1941 and 1943, Orwell worked on propaganda for the BBC. In 1943, he became literary editor of the Tribune, a weekly left-wing magazine. By now he was a prolific journalist, writing articles, reviews and books.
Sounds like every young lad. "If you aren't liberal when you're young, you have no heart, and if you are still liberal when you mature, you have no brains".
Bryan, you are trying to make Orwell seem like a socialist or commie.
|
|
John M
climber
|
|
That would be like me calling all Dems, commies.
priceless statement considering all the times that you have called every liberal on this forum a commie
|
|
bluering
Trad climber
Santa Clara, CA
|
|
Interesting, Cait. I read into to 'A Brave New World' something different.
It was what feminism will eventually do. And an obsession with sex and not long-term companionship, or the family unit.
It was about personal pleasure at all costs, not creating family units. The destruction of the family was always a goal of communists, and that's where I think Huxley was going. The Venona Papers would later validate this notion of the Commies.
Feminism is fine in moderation, like all other things. But like environmentalism it can be taken to drastic extremes. Unreasonable extremes. Another example would be religious extremists.
I find it interesting that you read anti-woman bias into his book. I found it more nihilistic, anti-family.
There's a Big Lebowski clip out there about nihilists....classic!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b_29yvYpf4w
|
|
happiegrrrl
Trad climber
www.climbaddictdesigns.com
|
|
Feminism is about women's right to ENVISION, CHOOSE and CREATE circumstances and opportunities in their lives. It has nothing to do with a destruction of family.
Unless you think a woman forced to bear children, and having opportunities withheld from her so she must be dependent on a man for survival is imperative as a guard against the breakdown of the traditional western family ideal.
|
|
bluering
Trad climber
Santa Clara, CA
|
|
For nihilism go to the Russians. They write circles around Huxley.
Hehe! As for Huxley, I guess we all read out of his work what is in our hearts. Our own perceptions. Which is maybe why his work is so popular/controversial.
EDIT: Unless you think a woman forced to bear children, and having opportunities withheld from her so she must be dependent on a man for survival is imperative as a guard against the breakdown of the traditional western family ideal.
Never said that, nor meant it.
|
|
Gary
Social climber
Desolation Basin, Calif.
|
|
George Orwell would be a conservative independent if he were alive today...
That may be the stupidest f*#king thing I've ever read.
An anarchist in the late 1920s, by the 1930s he had begun to consider himself a socialist. In 1936, he was commissioned to write an account of poverty among unemployed miners in northern England, which resulted in 'The Road to Wigan Pier' (1937). Late in 1936, Orwell travelled to Spain to fight for the Republicans against Franco's Nationalists. He was forced to flee in fear of his life from Soviet-backed communists who were suppressing revolutionary socialist dissenters. The experience turned him into a lifelong anti-Stalinist.
Between 1941 and 1943, Orwell worked on propaganda for the BBC. In 1943, he became literary editor of the Tribune, a weekly left-wing magazine. By now he was a prolific journalist, writing articles, reviews and books.
Sounds like every young lad. "If you aren't liberal when you're young, you have no heart, and if you are still liberal when you mature, you have no brains".
Bryan, you are trying to make Orwell seem like a socialist or commie.
That may be the stupidest f*#king analysis I've ever read. How could you possibly reach that conclusion from your quoted material?
Bluering, is there a community college near you? You might want to see if they have courses on logic and/or rhetoric.
|
|
bluering
Trad climber
Santa Clara, CA
|
|
Again, I think the gist of BNW was that of totalitarianism, whether it be Fascist, Communist, or anti-Feminist.
It was about a...wait....New World Order, where the paradigm of individualism is shifted towards gov't control of how you should conduct yourself. Of what is "acceptable" or "allowed" behaviors.
People like to put Communism and Fascism on opposite sides of the left-right political spectrum, but they are one in their totalitarianism.
Once you understand totalitaranism, nothing really matters. All the stupid labels. Liberty and personal freedom is all that matters. That also includes Feminism, whatever that means now. I'm still puzzled by it.
|
|
Gary
Social climber
Desolation Basin, Calif.
|
|
Bluering: Gary, that stuff I posted is from the BBC archives of famous peoples.
Yes, I'm not disputing that. It's the conclusion you drew from it that baffles me.
Was he an anti-Stalinist? You bet, but that didn't make him conservative. The socialists and the anarchists fighting on the republican side in the Spanish Civil War all came to hate Moscow and Berlin with equal fervor.
Did he write propaganda for the BBC? You bet, Britain was in a death struggle with fascism. The fact that he wrote for the BBC doesn't make him conservative.
You have one more false idea, that Orwell was a liberal. No, he was too far to the left to be a liberal.
|
|
survival
Big Wall climber
Terrapin Station
|
|
Give it to me Bookie, you big hot conservative stud!
|
|
bookworm
Social climber
Falls Church, VA
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Mar 6, 2014 - 01:33pm PT
|
$600 MILLION for abortions overseas...to protect animals????
from barry's latest budget:
miranda: oh, brave new world that has such men in it
prospero: tis new to thee
|
|
survival
Big Wall climber
Terrapin Station
|
|
|
|
Dal Maxvill
Social climber
Illinois
|
|
sullly, I think you missed his point.
|
|
Gilroy
Social climber
Bolderado
|
|
sully, you're badazz.
:) go get 'em!
|
|
bluering
Trad climber
Santa Clara, CA
|
|
Sully and I merely misinterpreted the gist of the literature. She saw misogyny, and I saw totalitarian twisting of culture and values.
I think we're both right, but Sully seems to dwell on the mysogyist part and miss the bigger picture.
More accurately, I think, is that she just pointed out a perceived trend in the style of the author, with which I'd disagree.
What's ironic here is that the systems displayed in these books, points out out how the systems are oppressive to certain peoples. It's all peoples, actually, but everyone ignores the hurt that aren't themselves.
Everyone will only identify with their class, when push comes to shove. Everybody talks a good game about the poor, minorities, women's rights, but they don't give a fuk until they are directly affected.
This is a problem in our 'enlightened' society.
I wrote about this recently...
http://patdollard.com/2014/02/what-have-we-sown/
|
|
survival
Big Wall climber
Terrapin Station
|
|
|
Mar 24, 2014 - 12:05pm PT
|
|
|
survival
Big Wall climber
Terrapin Station
|
|
|
Mar 24, 2014 - 12:53pm PT
|
Bookie's here to save us.
|
|
bookworm
Social climber
Falls Church, VA
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Mar 24, 2014 - 02:08pm PT
|
it's simple:
i believe, rationally, that all life begins at conception; so, yes, i believe aborted or miscarried children should be treated with dignity and mourned accordingly
f and survival, on the other hand, believe, irrationally, that life begins at some ever-arbitrary point that is most convenient to them, and, accordingly, see no dignity in life at all
how about this, f, every person who believes abortion is a "right" should volunteer their own unborn offspring for incineration...we'll even send the "fuel" to third world countries to help boost their economies...we'll even reduce global warming by reducing the population
i'll also resubmit a previous offer: f, i'll let you waterboard me if you let me abort you...i'll even let you go first; afterwards we'll discuss the morality of each action; granted, you won't have much to say, but i'll help you prove your point by feeding your remains into the nearest incinerator
you don't know soylent green and claim i'm in a bubble? oh, the irony...
|
|
survival
Big Wall climber
Terrapin Station
|
|
|
Mar 24, 2014 - 02:18pm PT
|
see no dignity in life at all
What a bunch of bullsh#t. I see plenty of dignity in life, but I see little dignity in a bunch of holier than thou men telling women what they can and can't do with their body. Especially when the aforementioned man has no answer to what to do with all these single mothers who had no honorable christian men to take care of these kids and what to do with all these children in poverty with no great Bookie to raise and pay for them.
|
|
apogee
climber
Technically expert, safe belayer, can lead if easy
|
|
|
Mar 24, 2014 - 02:22pm PT
|
"I see plenty of dignity in life, but I see little dignity in a bunch of holier than thou men telling women what they can and can't do with their body."
Oh hells yes +1!
|
|
happiegrrrl
Trad climber
www.climbaddictdesigns.com
|
|
|
Mar 24, 2014 - 02:27pm PT
|
The article headline is misleading.
The article is about SOME hospitals not following procedures, by not providing their patients who have miscarried before 13 weeks with options with regards to the remains.
It is about SOME hospitals not following a protocol that has been established.
It is not about a "widely accepted," Brave New World-like change in societal viewpoint. It is not about shoveling fetus' from abortion facilities into furnaces.
|
|
survival
Big Wall climber
Terrapin Station
|
|
|
Mar 24, 2014 - 02:33pm PT
|
Let me put it to you this way Bookcheese:
I have personally been involved in four pregnancies in my life. I have raised all these children with my hands, heart, blood, sweat and tears.
I would never FORCE one of my daughters to give birth to the child of an irresponsible man who wanted to f*#k with no birth control, but then refused to follow up as a father.
Tell me about your father knighthood Book, go ahead.
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
|
Mar 24, 2014 - 03:05pm PT
|
i believe, rationally, that all life begins at conception
That is COMPLETELY not the relevant point, and the "legislate morality," right wing of Christianity has done more damage to the cause of Christ than can POSSIBLY be expressed!
THE issue in the abortion debate is not when "life" begins. THE issue is when moral value begins, and that CLEARLY is not neatly mapped onto "life."
If I scratch my arm, I am INTENTIONALLY killing millions of LIVE cells. There they were, clinging to my arm just wanting nothing more than to LIVE, but I scraped them off with NO MOURNING nor consideration, and they just fall to floor and DIE. And all for a bit of my selfish convenience!
WHAT is the morally relevant difference between all of those cells I just killed and the single cell that is a fertilized human ovum?
What makes that one cell SO important to right-wing Christians, when you do not decry the MILLIONS of cells that we intentionally kill every time we scratch some spot on our bodies?
Until you can RIGOROUSLY answer such questions, you have NO basis upon which to formulate and enact laws on the subject. And by "rigorous," I do NOT mean quoting Scripture. You do NOT get to impose a purely Scripturally-based morality on this society. We enjoy a separation of (all) church and state. And, anyway, you don't HAVE good Scripturally-based arguments. I know and will be happy to debate you on that subject 'till the cows come home. ALL of the verses used to support the radical anti-abortion campaign are completely misinterpreted and can be trivially shown to be so.
So, do you care to rise to my challenge, or do you prefer to just "have" your opinion not based on anything solid, while spending your life imposing it on other people? You say, "i believe rationally," but, believe ME, your position is not derived RATIONALLY.
|
|
survival
Big Wall climber
Terrapin Station
|
|
|
Mar 24, 2014 - 03:30pm PT
|
WHAT is the morally relevant difference between all of those cells I just killed and the single cell that is a fertilized human ovum?
Madbolter1 for the win.
Here is a summary of a very relevant chat I had with a friend. He is a PHD Microbiologist and Plant Pathologist.
We were walking in the desert and he commented on how insignificant human life is, compared to the history of life on Earth, and specifically as a "biomass".
I went for the bait and told him that indeed humans are special, because 500 acre mold colonies don't write symphonies or send spaceships to Mars.
He went into great depth explaining the concepts of life on Earth, and the importance of various "layers" of life.
Basically he boiled it down to human kind being very small, destructive, arrogant and wrong in the big picture of the universe.
But if you believe in the invisible sky-wizard creating the entire universe for us, then it's easy to create moral superiority.
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
|
Mar 24, 2014 - 03:41pm PT
|
But if you believe in the invisible sky-wizard creating the entire universe for us, then it's easy to create moral superiority.
Gotta be careful with that sort of argumentation, though, when arguing with the likes of a "legislate morality" Christian (LMC). If you can't draw a principled moral line between humans and other animals, then you throw the LMC a "rational" bone as he says, "See! You don't hold ANY human life as sacred! No wonder you aren't concerned about the MURDER of millions of innocent babies!"
The better tack is to AGREE that morally-relevant human beings are "sacred" and then proceed to explicate what makes ANY entity morally-relevant. AGREE (for the purposes of argument) with the moral objectivism of LMCs, but just show how misguided THEIR version of it really is.
It is thereby quickly easy to GUT their legislative arguments on a whole spectrum of social issues, ranging from gay marriage to abortion.
|
|
survival
Big Wall climber
Terrapin Station
|
|
|
Mar 24, 2014 - 03:49pm PT
|
Gotcha. I agree with you, but have trouble holding my keyboard back at times.
Don't worry, Book will be back and you can proceed to change his mind at that time....heh heh..
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
|
Mar 24, 2014 - 03:58pm PT
|
LOL... changing his mind will likely be, well, unlikely. But at least some on-the-fence thinkers might be swayed to realize how misguided is the whole LMC paradigm.
Seriously, I'm a Christian, but I DISPISE this LMC form of it (which has become mainstream Christianity)! Mainstream Christianity has become increasingly irrelevant and itself morally bankrupt. So it panders to LMC "morality" in desperate attempts to regain relevance and the "moral high ground." In so doing, it has destroyed the Republican party, alienated most people in this country, and, ironically, REMAINS increasingly irrelevant.
If Christians would be CHRISTIAN, and magnify individual freedom and education (rather than legislation), spending their time serving the poor and underprivileged, and living lives of self-sacrifice (instead of spending ANY time in LMC behaviors), Christianity might regain some relevancy in this society.
Oh, and being just a smidgen of "rational" would also help. But rationality seems to have largely departed from Christianity, to be replaced by pat-answers, smug-certainty, and dogma.
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
|
Mar 24, 2014 - 04:00pm PT
|
Vaginal birth twice was da bomb!!!
Good on ya!
Your whole post was hilarious (and probably correct). LOL
|
|
survival
Big Wall climber
Terrapin Station
|
|
|
Mar 24, 2014 - 04:11pm PT
|
Wow Mad, you write so much more,...ummm, Christian....than many we read/hear or are otherwise exposed to currently.
It's easy for me to forget some of the greats I've known when confronted with the foaming at the mouth on both sides these days.
|
|
John M
climber
|
|
|
Mar 24, 2014 - 04:12pm PT
|
I believe bookworm has said that he is a high school science teacher. That or math teacher.
to me he is a troll. He wants no conversation. He just wants to irritate. Much like TGT. But conversation probably wouldn't matter because their beliefs are so ingrained that they can't see anything that lays outside of it. Plus there is an element of meanness to them that I don't respect at all. I would do away with their kind of troll if I could. What kind of person posts stuff to try and piss people off? And so that they can feel superior.. Dr. F has some of that element too, but he will at least talk to you.
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
|
Mar 24, 2014 - 04:34pm PT
|
Wow Mad, you write so much more,...ummm, Christian....than many we read/hear or are otherwise exposed to currently.
Thank you.
My problem is that I feel sort of split between two worlds. I am Christian, but I hate mainstream Christianity. I read Christianity Today each month, and mostly I finish each issue discouraged and thinking, "So confused."
I have served in very high ranking positions in two different global denominations, most recently as the Executive Director of one. Yet I resigned when the board (illegally) decided to protect a former board member who, now as a local pastor, basically ripped off the organization for almost half-a-million dollars, lied about it (of course), and then instructed me to do nothing about it. My lawyer informed me that to do nothing would be a violation of my own legally-mandated fiduciary duties and that I had best resign, which I did. I relate this to say that I have seen the sickness in Christianity first-hand and at a level that few ever do. And I am sickened by it!
Then, when you consider the damage done politically....
Palin is the best LMCs can do, and LMCs LOVE her! And the primary system ensures that ONLY someone claiming to BE an LMC can get the Republican nomination. But such an individual is not mainstream-electable, so the nominee then spends all the time between the primary and the general election trying to undo the image they created to get the nomination in the first place!
Here's another example. Kerry would have almost certainly been a better president than Bush (well, a chimp would have been better). However, in one of the last debates, he was asked from the floor of the audience what his stand on abortion was: "Senator Kerry, you are a staunch Catholic, yet you have publicly said that you support Roe vs. Wade. How can you reconcile those positions?"
Kerry responded with one of the most sensible and nuanced statements on the subject I have EVER heard from a Christian: "Yes, I am a staunch Catholic. But in this country we value a separation between church and state, and we don't impose any sectarian 'morality' on the public via legislation. So, I am personally opposed to abortion, but in my public role as President I would not legislate against it, because I believe that the arguments against it are specifically Judeo-Christian, and we don't base our laws on such positions."
I watched that debate and went, "WOW! If I had NO other reason for voting for Kerry, that just sealed the deal." But the next day the Seattle Times (typically liberal-democrat) ran a front-page article, the headline of which read: "Kerry Waffles on Abortion." And the rest is history.
Now we have the Patriot Act, INSANE levels of spending started by Bush and blithely continued by Obama, invasions into our personal lives that we could not have imagined just a decade ago, and the litany goes on and on!
And rather than being a SANE, moderate voice in all of this, LMCs have become increasingly shrill, entrenched, and CAUSING yet more problems (as I've just scratched the surface of).
If Christianity would get off of this LMC kick, it could be a valuable and even credible contributor to the public dialog. But as it stand now (and is ever increasing), ALL we get is sickness, dogma, and Palins.
GAG!
|
|
yedi
Trad climber
Stanwood,wa
|
|
|
Mar 24, 2014 - 04:46pm PT
|
|
|
bookworm
Social climber
Falls Church, VA
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Apr 22, 2014 - 09:15am PT
|
the thrill of motherhood:
"Suddenly I was pregnant and I could get free dental work on the NHS, so I got a tooth straightened for cosmetic reasons, and it all seemed great."
the agony of the unborn:
“An abortion will further my career. This time next year I won’t have a baby. Instead, I’ll be famous, driving a bright pink Range Rover and buying a big house. Nothing will get in my way.”
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/video-josie-cunningham-plans-abortion-3434350
miranda: oh, brave new world that has such people in't
prospero: 'tis new to thee
|
|
philo
Trad climber
Is that light the end of the tunnel or a train?
|
|
|
Apr 22, 2014 - 10:05am PT
|
|
|
bluering
Trad climber
Santa Clara, CA
|
|
|
Apr 23, 2014 - 07:28pm PT
|
Anyway if you can't stand torching a feutus, what about a liver? Or a brain? Or a spinal column? Or a leg? Or a booger? or your sperm?
That's a pretty disgusting lack of humanity. A fetus has a soul, and no choice in the matter.
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
|
Apr 23, 2014 - 07:40pm PT
|
A fetus has a soul, and no choice in the matter.
Well, that's a profoundly contentious claim. Indeed, it's one way of stating THE contentious claim.
So, do you just "know" this somehow, or do you have actual reasons for thinking that your claim is true?
Would you care to enlighten those of us that have not yet tumbled to the reasons? And I'm not asking for "empirical evidence," as that itself might well "load the game," so to speak. I'm asking for ANY evidence! Care to quote Scripture, for example?
I'm sincerely curious how it is that SO many are SO confident in that claim, but they are also SO slow to offer actual reasoning to sustain it.
I'll even load the game ENTIRELY in your favor and grant what is likely your base premise that the Bible is THE authoritative basis for moral facts.
Even then, with the game SO loaded in your favor (or load it however you please; I'm game), PLEASE explain how you get from "there" to the truth of your claim.
If we could even get clear about THIS, it just might be possible to have a gap-bridging discussion.
|
|
bluering
Trad climber
Santa Clara, CA
|
|
|
Apr 23, 2014 - 08:06pm PT
|
MB, let's start with my thought that all living beings in the fish/animal world have souls. That does not mean they are all 'good' souls. Some have grown rotten, despite always starting pure and innocent.
I have no proof of the presence of a soul. The only thing I have is that all life is born in innocence. As we wander through life, our soul either expands (good) or retracts (evil).
This can be evidenced by the nature of certain people. Some are inherently good inside, others can be the most rotten SOBs you've ever met. I think this is the soul on display, not just 'personality' or 'mental state'.
Once a baby starts to form in the womb, it moves and recent scans of babies in the womb clearly show interaction with Mom and emotions. They have a soul at that point IMO.
But when did they acquire that soul? I would gather that it happens at conception, or very, very soon thereafter.
|
|
bluering
Trad climber
Santa Clara, CA
|
|
|
Apr 23, 2014 - 08:13pm PT
|
Sully, did you hear about the story he's referencing? The gal in the UK that was going to get an abortion just so she could be a reality TV star?
|
|
bluering
Trad climber
Santa Clara, CA
|
|
|
Apr 23, 2014 - 08:30pm PT
|
That's fair enough, Sully. I'll let Bookie defend himself.
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
|
Apr 23, 2014 - 09:58pm PT
|
Thank you for your answer, Bluering. I'm not sure I understand your perspective yet, though. Given your perspective of souls, it seems that more is included than excluded, so I'd like to hear your exclusions.
For example, does a single skin cell have a soul? I'm NOT being specious with this question. If all living things have souls, then which among living things do not have a soul? How would lines be drawn between soul-things and non-soul-things?
Thank you in advance! And, yes, booky has a mountain to climb to "defend" his/herself.
|
|
bluering
Trad climber
Santa Clara, CA
|
|
|
Apr 23, 2014 - 10:12pm PT
|
MB, A single cell organism would not have a soul. It's a cell, not a 'being'.
Only when a life is created, is a soul produced to represent that life. It is the life's inner being. The Hindus have much written upon this. I think the Buddhists too.
The Christian church lets it lie much more Biblically. But I think we are all referring to the same thing. Just different angles.
|
|
philo
Trad climber
Is that light the end of the tunnel or a train?
|
|
|
Apr 23, 2014 - 10:23pm PT
|
Only when a life is created, is a soul produced to represent that life
Are single cell organisms alive?
|
|
bluering
Trad climber
Santa Clara, CA
|
|
|
Apr 23, 2014 - 10:28pm PT
|
Philo, like plants, they are "alive", but IMO they are soul-less. Did you read my previous post?
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
|
Apr 24, 2014 - 01:46am PT
|
MB, A single cell organism would not have a soul. It's a cell, not a 'being'.
Only when a life is created, is a soul produced to represent that life.
Thank you again for your clarification, Bluering! Much appreciated.
Would you mind more clarification? I ask because I'm still not seeing the connection between your "inhuman" comment upthread and this further clarification on your part.
LMCs insist that the "person" exists at the moment of conception. They, of course, draw "the line" here in order to avoid paradoxes of ambiguity. However, your account thus far seems ripe for application of such paradoxes.
For example, if a single cell has no soul, then at the moment of conception a fertilized cell has no soul. If the cell divides (in the first step on its path toward becoming a full-blown "person" with a full-blown soul) does it then have a soul?
If you say "no, not yet," then one wonders how many cells it takes to achieve "soul status." If you say "yes, it is now multicelled," then one wonders why there is a sudden and qualitative distinction that occurs between one and "at least two" cells.
If you claim that somewhere between two and "many" cells the "soul status" is achieved, then you are solidly in paradox of ambiguity terrain, and any "resolution" of that paradox will be arbitrary (and hence, not really sustaining your "inhuman" accusation).
Furthermore, at first you seemed to conflate "alive" with "having a soul," but you most recently seem to distinguish between these statuses. But your present distinction still seems murky to me, because, as I say above, I'm not clear exactly WHAT features of an entity give it "soul status," and I'm confident that you don't think it is entirely a numerical (number of cells) metric!
I hope my line of questioning is clear. I'm just not sure what, on your view, gets a fetus any particular moral status and how that status is attained when the fertilized cell doesn't have it but somewhere along the development the fetus does have it.
In short, what are the morally-relevant features of a fetus that give it "soul status?"
Thank you again!
|
|
bookworm
Social climber
Falls Church, VA
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Apr 24, 2014 - 10:17am PT
|
"So bookworm. What's your story? Were you unable to get pregnant? If you are male were you unable to get a woman pregnant?"
don't understand the relevance...so only women who are or have been pregnant are permitted an opinion on abortion? are you unable to have sex or were you absent the day they explained both male and female contributions are necessary for pregnancy? do you not understand that 50% of unborn babies are male? are you not aware the majority of abortions around the world kill female babies? why does your concern for women begin only post-partum?
biologically, scientifically, rationally life begins at conception...the soul is not relevant to the argument;i want to save the atheist unborn as much as the faithful unborn and give them all a chance to CHOOSE for themselves
if a woman wants to be pregnant, then she carries a baby (at whatever stage) and a miscarriage (i.e. the body naturally terminating the pregnancy) is tragic...if a woman does not want to be pregnant, then she carries a clump of cells/tissue (at whatever stage) and an abortion (i.e. another person intentionally and unnaturally terminating the pregnancy) is a "right"...please, explain, sully
"More significantly, why pose as an English teacher? You quote my Bible, The Complete Works of Shakespeare, out of context. Plus, you hold up the most anti-female dystopian classic to push a women's issue. Good thinking, maestra."
if you actually read shakespeare (rather than just mouthing the words) you would understand the context is appropriate...miranda comments on a group of men she sees for the first time, men we know to be corrupt--these are the same men who abandoned her father, with an infant daughter (oh, maybe a 3-year-old doesn't count as a human, either...), on an island, presumably, to die--her praise of these men is ironic (which, i'm sure, you recongnize since your "bible" is full of examples)
the key, which you miss (not surprisingly), is prospero's response...he recognizes there is nothing "new" about miranda's world, on or off the island; such corruption always has and always will exist and, most often, in beauteous form...he understands his life as duke (and his daughter's life) back in milan will still be fraught with peril
"I'm sure you agree that John the Savage is one crappy Christ figure. How was the brave new world any better after his suicide?"
honestly, it's just such comments that explain why i'm a teacher (and why my job is so often depressing)
of course, john is a failed christ figure...first, he's john NOT jesus; he's either the baptist or the apostle in need of the christ to teach him the truth...shakespeare is a great source for moral teaching, but the morality is incomprehensible without a strong biblical foundation; shakespeare and john's innate morality can take him only so far (like dante's guide; virgil--symbolically, human reason--can take us only as far as earthly paradise; only the love of god can take us to heaven)
the point is, sully, the world is not brave or new; huxley is simply illustrating his own world carried to the extreme (hence, the astute and contextually appropriate allusion)
the point is, sully, this world is NOT "better" after john's suicide; the world is worse because the last good chance the world had to redeem itself is dead, killed by the world he might have saved...sound familiar? that's actually from the real bible
when i started my career 20 years ago, the majority of my students (including a majority of jews, muslims, hindus, buddhists, atheists, etc.) knew the story of jesus and its implications; they didn't believe it, but they understood it...sadly, the opposite is now true...i even have catholic students who don't understand the sacraments and the non-christians have no knowledge/appreciation of the bible at all...but they have an excuse--they're kids
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
|
Apr 24, 2014 - 11:58am PT
|
biologically, scientifically, rationally life begins at conception...
Nobody is arguing with you about this point.
THE point that you seem to be missing is that "life" is not the morally-relevant consideration in this debate, because mere "life" fails to explicate any morally-relevant distinction.
Based solely on your "life" statement, you MUST decry the needless slaughter of millions of innocent skin cells I cause whenever I scratch my arm.
But you do NOT decry this slaughter, as well you should not. So YOU recognize that "life" is not the morally-relevant metric here. Thus, you should quit retreating back to that point.
I'll ask you again: What IS the morally-relevant metric?
|
|
survival
Big Wall climber
Terrapin Station
|
|
|
Apr 24, 2014 - 12:41pm PT
|
I like madbolter more everyday.
The crux to me is the choice and legality issue.
Women have "had" and "created" abortions since almost forever. Abortions will continue to happen, whether they are legal or not.
I do not think women should be forced to carry and give birth to unwanted children.
I do not think women should be forced to have illegal, unsanitary and dangerous abortions.
I do not think women should be made into criminals for having illegal abortions.
Here's a thought Prospero, you don't want women to have abortions? Keep your f*#king dick in your pants.
|
|
Byran
climber
San Jose, CA
|
|
|
Apr 24, 2014 - 02:05pm PT
|
I'll ask you again: What IS the morally-relevant metric?
Man, it's almost as if you think morality is some sort of philosophical framework which seeks to increase happiness and mitigate suffering, based on objective truths about sentience, psychology, and the natural world.
But we all know morality is just doing what he bible says you should do.
Like if you strike a pregnant woman and cause her to have a miscarriage, then you should pay a fine to the husband for the loss of property. The problem is all these women are going around getting abortions and the husbands aren't getting their dues!
|
|
bookworm
Social climber
Falls Church, VA
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Apr 24, 2014 - 04:50pm PT
|
"So worried about the un-born but can't be bothered to care for the living."
i do care about the living; i don't think the innocent living should be killed, either
"THE point that you seem to be missing is that "life" is not the morally-relevant consideration in this debate, because mere "life" fails to explicate any morally-relevant distinction."
my fault, i assumed everyone understood we're discussing HUMAN LIFE
if there is no argument about when life begins, then what "metric" do you use to determine how long after life begins it's acceptable/moral to terminate life? explain the moral distinction between 6 weeks, 16 weeks, 26 weeks, and 36 weeks...if you agree life begins at conception, explain the moral distinction between in utero and out
"Women have "had" and "created" abortions since almost forever. Abortions will continue to happen, whether they are legal or not."
by that reasoning, you believe we have a "right" to murder, too
"I do not think women should be forced to carry and give birth to unwanted children.
I do not think women should be forced to have illegal, unsanitary and dangerous abortions.
I do not think women should be made into criminals for having illegal abortions."
neither do i; the ONLY difference in our understanding of the issue is that i believe women should make these decisions BEFORE they have sex and not after
"Here's a thought Prospero, you don't want women to have abortions? Keep your f*#king dick in your pants."
EXACTLY! and women should keep their panties on, too
crazy me, i think people should be responsible for their actions; you don't want kids, don't have sex...we're humans, not animals; we can choose to have sex or not; we can comprehend the consequences of our actions; we can live our lives fully, which includes the painful (or inconvenient) as well as the joyful, or we can abdicate our dignity and subjugate ourselves entirely to our passions and hope for someone else to clean up our messes
|
|
bluering
Trad climber
Santa Clara, CA
|
|
|
Apr 24, 2014 - 08:21pm PT
|
Furthermore, at first you seemed to conflate "alive" with "having a soul," but you most recently seem to distinguish between these statuses. But your present distinction still seems murky to me, because, as I say above, I'm not clear exactly WHAT features of an entity give it "soul status," and I'm confident that you don't think it is entirely a numerical (number of cells) metric!
I hope my line of questioning is clear. I'm just not sure what, on your view, gets a fetus any particular moral status and how that status is attained when the fertilized cell doesn't have it but somewhere along the development the fetus does have it.
In short, what are the morally-relevant features of a fetus that give it "soul status?"
When a conception takes place, I believe a soul is created that strives to grow. It's quite the magical process. The moral status is derived from the potential of that initiated process. That will become a person. As such, it should be treated as one.
Just because it hasn't left the women, doesn't mean it should not have a moral value.
It's not a quantity of cells that matters, it's the conception.
|
|
Flip Flop
Trad climber
Truckee, CA
|
|
|
Apr 24, 2014 - 09:57pm PT
|
Abortions are awesome because humanity is a raging cancer. The religious fundamentalists in this thread can go eat poison, they are so stupid with their impotent rules.
|
|
bluering
Trad climber
Santa Clara, CA
|
|
|
Apr 24, 2014 - 10:05pm PT
|
Meanwhile, do you really think we are the moral fuk ups now?
Aren't you the same guy who saw burning defective, bad livers on the same level as burning aborted babies?
EDIT: I'm curious of your thoughts on the human soul, Bruce? Just soul-music?
|
|
bluering
Trad climber
Santa Clara, CA
|
|
|
Apr 24, 2014 - 10:46pm PT
|
Yes I do regard human life as sacred, more sacred than animal life. I assume it is a tribal loyalty as much as anything as all evidence shows many animal life forms have all the emotional and possibly spiritual qualities that we do. Either way, this sacred thing ain't as simple a rule book as it seems.
I'm think it's related to the degree of intelligence that I also have sympathy for animals. They can sense and anticipate pain and suffering because they have greater intelligence, larger souls, and more feeling. I'm speaking specifically of elephants and dolphins. Two of the smarter species in the animal world. They indeed have hearty souls.
Intelligence should not be a guage for sympathy though, it's just those species display their regret more than others.
Yes I do regard human life as sacred, more sacred than animal life. I assume it is a tribal loyalty as much as anything as all evidence shows many animal life forms have all the emotional and possibly spiritual qualities that we do. Either way, this sacred thing ain't as simple a rule book as it seems.
Yes I know it is to you but you can have it and have a good time. Just don't foist you ancient rules of ancient date on the rest of us. Neither yours nor our society is a theocracy.
I wonder if you'd tell a native American the same thing as we plowed over their burial-sites to make room for a project, or if the gov't seized their land in an eminent-domain fashion. Native American=sacred, Christian=go f*#k yerself.
Just curious, about the burning feotuses.... would you not be so disgusted if there was a sacred ceremony to send them off in dignity? Is that your hang up?
That would be a good step. I say a prayer for dead road-kill as I pass them. The little dead babies deserve the same. At least!
|
|
bluering
Trad climber
Santa Clara, CA
|
|
|
Apr 24, 2014 - 11:42pm PT
|
We don't do farewell ceremonies for old livers, apparently not feotuses either, but at some point we decide they are people then it gets pretty sacred.
You obviously think a fetus is nothing more than dead tissue. Yeah, I understand that. Never had a soul, like a "liver".
Its a fair argument as to when but only you religious guys seem to want to determine it by magic. For some reason you also only focus on one interesting but unsubstantiated idea (the soul ) while ignoring completely the well substantiated realities of the unquestionably living moral beings already here.
So, your ticket to individual rights is making it out of the vagina? That's when we start to care?
Maybe the problem wouldn't be such a problem if pregnancy did not equal a spiral of poverty and state / church enforced spiritual dysfunction, like having Bookworm learing down at you from his pulpit.
Yeah, saving babies from death should only be a religious issue, not moral. If a mother CHOSE to execute her child after birth because she just waited a bit to long to make her CHOICE, would that be cool? She just was making her pro-choice decision afterall.
When is it o.k. to kill babies? Or too late?
|
|
survival
Big Wall climber
Terrapin Station
|
|
|
Apr 25, 2014 - 11:42am PT
|
Killing is done everyday, in unbelievably huge quantities.
Billions of small plants, trees, fish, and super cute mammals, all because we're so superior. Humans are "special" and God says in this book here that he made them all for us to dispose of as we see fit. Hold it, you say there's more than one set of holy books?
But wait, that's not all, we kill massive numbers of HUMANS everyday too. Our government, your government, other peoples governments are all doing it, for sometimes less than glorious reasons.
And then we have our sacred right to keep and bear arms, so we can whack each other for every conceivable reason.
Here's the truth. Legal, safe, sanitary abortion and a woman's right to choose is the LAW OF THE LAND. A decision argued by some incredibly smart people, and decided on by the Supreme Court, the highest court in the United States. You do believe in America don't you book?
Sorry book, but you don't get to call this one. Don't like abortion? Don't have one. Keep your holy flippers off of women's right to choose.
|
|
philo
Trad climber
Is that light the end of the tunnel or a train?
|
|
|
Apr 25, 2014 - 08:26pm PT
|
Thou art allowed sex only for God's holy procreation.
No wonder Ol Bookie is such a bitter coot.
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
|
Apr 26, 2014 - 04:58am PT
|
Yup, Bruce, you've just NAILED what I cannot stand about my "fellow" Christians.
The pompous dogmatism, especially when it is neither theologically nor philosophically sound, but it is trotted out as GOSPEL, is just disgusting and is a mark of shame to the actual cause of Christ.
Bookie dances all around the questions without even seeing that he/she is really providing NO answers at all. He/she thinks that further CLAIMS constitute answers. He/she thinks that by "turning the tables" and asking his/her own questions, he/she can DODGE the fact that he/she has no answers.
And Bluering's "soul" bit is no more credible than me claiming that everything in the universe is doubling in size once each second. I can CLAIM it all I want; but there is not a SHRED of evidence to think the claim is true. Worse, it is equivalent to the claim that everything is tripling in size every second. Or quadrupling. NO evidence can distinguish between these claims, and there is NO reason to think that any of them are true. Such is Bluering's "soul" business. And he offers no good reasons to distinguish between HUMAN skin cells and HUMAN fertilized eggs. Both are HUMAN cells and are fully and genetically human.
People like this "just believe," and they just don't EVER stop to reassess how they CAME to believe what they believe. They just KNOW, but what they "know" is like my claims about doubling, tripling, etc.
THAT would be bad enough, as Clifford says, such beliefs held on the basis of NO evidence actually degrade all of society!
But when they try to ENFORCE their "morality" on others, they have crossed a line that, fortunately, THIS society disallows them to cross. When they become rabid and wholly dogmatic and try to LEGISLATE their version of "morality," they go FAR beyond the pale and should be SMACKED down with counter-legislation!
There is no reason (Biblically or philosophically) to believe that a fertilized human egg has a soul. There is NO reason to afford it any special status.
And the "potential" argument Bluering floats is entirely specious.
I have the potential to be a president of the United States; but I don't get afforded that status until I AM! Mere potential does not afford actual status, and that is true also in the moral realm.
The ONLY response that has been floated to that response to the "potential" argument is something like: "But in the normal, natural course of events, these 'potential' people usually become people."
FALSE, both empirically and by force of reason alone.
We literally do not know what the proportion is of fertilizations that result in live births compared to symptomless miscarriages. But we have evidence that the rate is very high!
"Among women who know they are pregnant, the miscarriage rate is about 15-20%." (http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/article/001488.htm); And it is impossible in principle to know the miscarriage rate among women who did not know they were pregnant. By definition, they did not know, so they did not know that they miscarried instead of having a normal period. So, it is likely that the actual miscarriage rate (and this is in modern, developed societies!) is likely 50% or more. A LOT of sex, and a LOT of fertilization is happening; and there are not THAT many live births.
It's pretty hard to float the "potential" argument when, even in a modern, healthy society, it's at best a CRAPSHOOT if any given pregnancy comes to term and results in a live birth! The empirical evidence just doesn't support the claim that "in most cases" or "in the normal course of events" pregnancies produce live human babies. In FACT, it's probably more like a 50/50 shot, or even worse. So, what IS this supposed "normal course of events" that supposedly grounds the "potential" argument?
Furthermore, even if the empirical evidence supported the claim about the "normal course of events," the fact remains that for any PARTICULAR fetus (that supposedly has 'gotten hold of a soul'), that PARTICULAR soul might not to see the light of day!
So, the "potential" argument suffers badly from the fallacy of accident. Even IF (which is NOT the case) "the normal course of events" did "typically" produce a live birth, there is NO reason to think that ANY PARTICULAR fetus is going to "follow the rule." So, we WAIT to see if any PARTICULAR fetus DOES "follow the rule," and we acknowledge the human rights of those that DO. And we do NOT acknowledge such rights for all of the POTENTIAL MISCARRIAGES that do NOT!
An early term "abortion" is nothing but actualizing the POTENTIAL of that particular fetus to miscarry. So, notice how the "potential" sword cuts both ways! Any given fetus has the potential BOTH to become a full-blown person AND to become a wasting pile of useless jelly.
So, the "potential" argument fails to explicate.
Finally, in Judith Jarvis Thompson's seminal book, The Realm of Rights, she offers absolutely DEVASTATING arguments that MAKE the case that even if a fetus HAS ALL HUMAN RIGHTS, that STILL does not get you an anti-abortion case! I particularly recommend her famous thought experiments regarding the "plugged in violinist" and the "seeds."
These arguments and thought experiments MAKE that case that a woman's ACTUAL rights must ALWAYS trump even the PRESUMED rights of the fetus. And that is giving the fetus its best case, when in point of fact, there are not good reasons to PRESUME that a fetus DOES have any rights.
So, to sum up:
* The "potential" argument is a dismal failure because it is not empirically supported, AND it is not reasonable for various reasons including that it fallacious and is a two-edged sword.
* There is no Biblical or philosophical evidence to sustain the idea that a fetus is a person or has a soul.
* Even IF a fetus were afforded full human rights, that STILL does not make a sound anti-abortion case.
Christians would overnight enjoy a LOT more intellectual credibility if they would publicly acknowledge what a ridiculous hobby-horse they have been riding on this subject, BACK OFF of it, and turn their attention to actually productive education, acts of charity and mercy, and engage in the ACTUAL cause of Christ. Imagine taking the money Christians have spent opposing abortion and spending it on education and acts of mercy.
Wow! What a difference!
I know that I'd feel that I was in better company.
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
|
Apr 26, 2014 - 05:39am PT
|
Oh, I should make one other point while I'm on a roll.
Bookie suggests that for my arguments the line of "birth" is entirely arbitrary. He/she suggests that by my lights there is no particular reason to afford a newborn any human rights. And the idea is that it is obviously monstrous to kill off unwanted newborns; thus it is equally monstrous to kill off the unborn; the "line" being entirely arbitrary.
But the "line" of birth is FAR from arbitrary. In fact it is a very clear, bright line that perfectly correlates with Thompson's arguments about the often conflicting rights (presuming that fetuses have rights) between a woman and a fetus.
Here is the line: viability.
While the fetus is entirely, completely dependent upon the woman for its very existence, it is NOT an independent entity. It is literally a part of the woman.
However, at the point of viability (which modern medical practices keep pushing further and further back from the typical 9 months), the fetus CAN be considered an independent entity. It can be "detached" from the woman and still live and develop independently.
So there is nothing arbitrary about calling a non-viable fetus a part of a woman, giving her as much discretion over it as she has over any other part of her body. And there is nothing arbitrary about calling a viable fetus (or, more commonly, a born fetus) a "baby" and treating it as an independent entity.
Even that doesn't get you "soul" or anything of the kind. And "personhood" scales with development.
Already in this society we put a LOT of weight on the "potential" argument when it comes to BORN babies. They might not ever grow up to become full-blown persons. But we treat them as though they WILL. And these are certainly independent entities that have "beaten the odds" to become independent entities.
But the "potential" argument is put to its last trumps to get pushed further and further back into the development cycle of a fetus! By the time it is pushed back to the single fertilized cell, it has become entirely absurd, as I argued in my previous post.
Nope, there is a clear, bright line at viability; and we already put enough weight on the "potential" argument to grant full human rights to these independent entities at the point of birth (by whatever means they get "born").
When they are not even independent entities, we simply don't accept the "potential" argument. Instead, we rightly wait and see. Meanwhile, the WOMAN'S rights absolutely trump even the "potential" rights of a fetus.
Nothing arbitrary about it.
|
|
survival
Big Wall climber
Terrapin Station
|
|
|
Apr 26, 2014 - 09:54am PT
|
Here is the line: viability.
Bingo. Thou art KO'd book.
Some of us here in The United States believe strongly in a little thing called the separation of church and state. Just as strongly as you believe in your ideas book.
Any questions?
|
|
ontheedgeandscaredtodeath
Social climber
SLO, Ca
|
|
|
Apr 26, 2014 - 01:47pm PT
|
People who complain about fornication and "sluts" are always the same people that can't get laid.
|
|
bookworm
Social climber
Falls Church, VA
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Apr 26, 2014 - 01:59pm PT
|
"Bookie dances all around the questions without even seeing that he/she is really providing NO answers at all. He/she thinks that further CLAIMS constitute answers. He/she thinks that by "turning the tables" and asking his/her own questions, he/she can DODGE the fact that he/she has no answers."
please, repeat the questions i have not answered
here's one you did not answer: if the fertilized egg is a life (which, again, has been conceded on this thread) then why is it acceptable for a woman to END THE LIFE that is simply the NATURAL, and entirely predictable, result of a decision she willingly made?
please, provide a quote in which i promoted celibacy or any other form of asceticism; because i do not share your celebration of sexual debauchery (whatever, whenever, however, with whomever) does not mean i'm opposed to sex or even sex for pleasure; that's your entirely bigoted and ignorant interpretation of my straightforward comments--this is sully's problem with shakespeare; he reads the words but ignores what they actually mean preferring instead his own beliefs; i bet he thinks he's really clever when he teaches his students that shakespeare was a great feminist writer--i've never said you should stop having sex; i simply believe you should accept responsibility for your decisions...the horror, the horror
"dingus isn't mean enough"
when have i called anyone a "fuked up pathological whack job", or any other name? that's a liberal tactic and proof of the absence of rational argument
"bookworm and his Klan"
ah, the racism card has been played...how predictable, even in a discussion that has nothing to do with race and directed toward somebody who has made no comments about race
"drop it with the bigotry crap"
you're the one who assumed by arguments are religiously based...ever heard of hippocrates...he developed an oath for doctors long before anyone had heard of jesus...take a look at #4:
"I will give no deadly medicine to any one if asked, nor suggest any such counsel; and similarly I will not give a woman a pessary to cause an abortion"
so, even if the fetus is a life, it does not necessarily have rights...hmmm, where have i heard that reasoning before? some lives are more equal than others...stephen hawking is entirely dependent on others to remain "viable"--i guess he doesn't have any rights either...margaret sanger must be square dancing in her grave
by the way, what is scientific about rights, anyway? let me guess, you think the government gives us our rights (including the right to life)...what Gov giveth, Gov can taketh away
|
|
philo
Trad climber
Is that light the end of the tunnel or a train?
|
|
|
Apr 26, 2014 - 02:02pm PT
|
|
|
Reilly
Mountain climber
The Other Monrovia- CA
|
|
|
Apr 26, 2014 - 02:08pm PT
|
madbolter, please change yer avatar to COGENT1.
Not Concise1, but we'll overlook that. ;-)
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
|
Apr 27, 2014 - 01:29am PT
|
madbolter, please change yer avatar to COGENT1.
Not Concise1, but we'll overlook that. ;-)
LOL.... My favorite professor as an undergrad had a mantra: "There is no good writing. There is only good rewriting." Sadly, my first-pass posts here lack the elegance that I might manage with rewriting. Sorry to foist off on you only first-pass stuff; all I have time for.
But thanks.
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
|
Apr 27, 2014 - 02:03am PT
|
Now to business....
please, repeat the questions i have not answered
Well, for one, let's bring in your next point, which will provide the springboard from which I can remind you.
if the fertilized egg is a life (which, again, has been conceded on this thread) then why is it acceptable for a woman to END THE LIFE that is simply the NATURAL, and entirely predictable, result of a decision she willingly made?
Okay, the primary question I asked you, which you have not yet answered, is the same one that instantly emerges from your "point" just stated: "Given that there is no debate about the fetus being a "life," and there is no debate about a skin cell being a "life," HOW do you claim a fetus has certain "rights" that you do not agree a skin cell has?
THAT is the issue here. The issue is not "life" per se, as there are all sorts of cells and even entire species that you would not hold in any special regard. However, let this ONE CELL get fertilized inside a woman, and suddenly (still waiting to hear how), THAT ONE CELL has all sorts of "rights" that none of these other "lives" seemingly have!
Amazing!
I'll ask again: HOW do these rights suddenly obtain? WHAT are the morally-relevant metrics by which this is determined? And THESE questions are the ones that you PRESUME have good answers, although you have never shared these answers with us!
Now, to answer YOUR question (again):
There is NO problem in principle with "ending a life." We end ALL SORTS of "lives" in all sorts of contexts. So, I have no special burden of proof to explain this or that particular ending of a life. YOU are the one that says that this PARTICULAR sort of cell enjoys special privileges not enjoyed by ANY other single cell on Earth. So, my answer is to say, "I don't buy it. The burden of proof is on YOU to explain what the nature of this 'specialness' IS and how it obtains."
Please proceed to do so.
i simply believe you should accept responsibility for your decisions...the horror, the horror
I agree, and more than you realize, given that you don't know me nor have you followed my many (and usually very non-concise) posts on Libertarianism. But I don't see how YOU get from the laudable principle of personal responsibility to the claim that abortion is wrong.
so, even if the fetus is a life, it does not necessarily have rights...hmmm, where have i heard that reasoning before? some lives are more equal than others...stephen hawking is entirely dependent on others to remain "viable"--i guess he doesn't have any rights either...margaret sanger must be square dancing in her grave
Wow... I'm stunned by the conflations here. "Some lives are more equal than others?" Uhhh... YEAH! Among the many "lives" that populate planet Earth, we certainly DO think that, for examples, amoebas are FAR less "equal" than, say, WE are.
But you don't mean THAT by "lives," do you? No, because you are SMUGGLING in the point you presume but have not demonstrated, namely that the FETUS is a "special life," while the amoeba is not. But THAT is the very point under contention. So, again (and again), the burden of proof is on YOU to explain HOW and by what metrics that ONE CELL that matters so much to YOU is somehow different in principle from an amoeba.
If you say, "But, but... it's HUMAN! Duh!" I will respond: so are the many skin cells that I intentionally "murder" every day. What makes a fertilized ovum SO dang special and nothing at all like THOSE human cells?
I'm sure that YOU are in shock and horror at the thought that such a question could seriously be raised. But people on your side of the debate NEED to stop PRESUMING that your intuitions are right, such that ALL you can do is respond with shock and horror at people that don't share your intuitions. Again, YOU just "know" something, and you can't imagine how what you "know" isn't universally known. But it is NOT universally known. So buck up and start producing some EVIDENCE to support your position: empirical, reasoned, or (as I said above) even Scriptural.
I put it to you that you have NONE of the above. You have ONLY your intuitions, and they are NOT widely shared in this present society.
by the way, what is scientific about rights, anyway? let me guess, you think the government gives us our rights (including the right to life)...what Gov giveth, Gov can taketh away
Oh, the irony!
As others on this thread can tell you, I am well known in the various politard threads for my "originalist" constitutional perspective, my libertarian political philosophy, and my natural rights perspective of distinguishing between negative and positive rights.
I am about as FAR from your accusation of believing that the government grants rights as I could possibly be!
YOUR problem in arguing with me is that I am quick to see how you smuggle in your question-begging presumptions. So, to help you out a bit, you should know what you are up against, so that you don't keep accusing me of literally the opposite perspectives from the ones I have.
I have a Ph.D. in analytical philosophy from UC Santa Barbara. My areas of specialization (and in which I have primary taught and written) are in ethics and political philosophy. I mentioned above what my political perspectives are. And my ethical perspectives are that I am an objectivist and absolutist about the metaphysics of moral facts. Technically, that makes me a moral realist.
So you are not dealing with just some clueless yahoo here that has some undeveloped and fluffy notion of ethics and just some undifferentiated and thoughtless "failure" to share your intuitions on the subject of abortion.
YOU have a big problem on this subject, and that problem is that apparently nobody has ever really PUSHED you on this subject before. You are used to getting onto venues like this and manhandling the subject; but that approach will not fly here.
As I said, you need to BUCK UP and provide evidence to sustain your intuitions. IF you could do that, you might just sway some minds. But so far, you have dismally failed to do so.
|
|
bluering
Trad climber
Santa Clara, CA
|
|
|
Apr 27, 2014 - 04:48am PT
|
Okay, the primary question I asked you, which you have not yet answered, is the same one that instantly emerges from your "point" just stated: "Given that there is no debate about the fetus being a "life," and there is no debate about a skin cell being a "life," HOW do you claim a fetus has certain "rights" that you do not agree a skin cell has?
THAT is the issue here. The issue is not "life" per se, as there are all sorts of cells and even entire species that you would not hold in any special regard. However, let this ONE CELL get fertilized inside a woman, and suddenly (still waiting to hear how), THAT ONE CELL has all sorts of "rights" that none of these other "lives" seemingly have!
I thought I answered this. One has a soul, and one does not.
I find you annoying. Why do constantly bring up your educational background? Do you find that this makes you feel superior?
Hint - it makes you appear arrogant and less legit.
EDIT: There is NO problem in principle with "ending a life." We end ALL SORTS of "lives" in all sorts of contexts. So, I have no special burden of proof to explain this or that particular ending of a life. YOU are the one that says that this PARTICULAR sort of cell enjoys special privileges not enjoyed by ANY other single cell on Earth. So, my answer is to say, "I don't buy it. The burden of proof is on YOU to explain what the nature of this 'specialness' IS and how it obtains."
A baby is the epitomy of innocent life. It should be guarded carefully.
A criminal or terrorist is the epitomy of criminality and should be dealt with as such.
One is guilty, and one is innocent.
|
|
bluering
Trad climber
Santa Clara, CA
|
|
|
Apr 27, 2014 - 05:00am PT
|
I'm here for your entertainment. Enjoy the show, Johnson.
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
|
Apr 27, 2014 - 07:07am PT
|
I thought I answered this. One has a soul, and one does not.
I thought I made it clear what a useless statement that is.
How about THIS useless (and comparable) "argument" of mine?
1) Everything in the universe is doubling in size each second.
2) If this sort of doubling is going on, then we simply MUST have laws in place to prevent the rich people from EVER doubling their wealth!
------
3) So, we MUST have laws in place to prevent the rich people from EVER doubling their wealth.
You argue using talk of souls like I argue using size-doubling.
You argue from vague claims about fetal "rights" like I argue from vague claims about the "rich."
Your attempt to move from such claims to assertions about public policy is like my attempt to move from such claims to assertions about public policy.
Your ongoing attempts to violate the actual rights of real people is akin to my argument's assertion that we must violate the actual rights of real people.
So, either explicate this "soul" and "baby" business, or admit that you have only vacuous claims to offer in "support" of your attempts to take over female reproductive rights.
I find you annoying.
Increasingly: Ditto!
And so what?
Why do constantly bring up your educational background? Do you find that this makes you feel superior?
I wouldn't say that "constantly" is legitimate. If you look at the actual context, you'll see that it was appropriate in responding to the so-called "bookworm" (who quite apparently isn't).
"Superior?" Don't know what you mean. I would say: more studied on this subject. Absolutely yes. You and bookie quite clearly are not. And you SHOULD be before you try to pontificate AS THOUGH you actually do know what you are talking about. Unlike you, I actually do.
Hint - it makes you appear arrogant and less legit.
Oh well.
You appear "less legit" because you simply cannot produce a shred of evidence to sustain your oft-repeated and question-begging claims.
A baby is the epitomy of innocent life. It should be guarded carefully.
So you SAY. But the real question is: What entitles you to call a single, fertilized cell a "baby?" When you can (perhaps, finally) answer that simple question, we might be able to continue a discussion. But your endless repetition of your "soul" bit is NOT an explanation; it is merely another CLAIM that you offer zero support for.
A criminal or terrorist is the epitomy of criminality and should be dealt with as such.
Again, so you SAY. I don't get where this non-sequitur is supposed to fit in.
One is guilty, and one is innocent.
Wow... SO many problems with that statement that I'm groping for where to start!
Okay, how about here? You've started with a useless tautology: "One is guilty," referencing a criminal. Yessss... by definition a criminal is "guilty," so what's the point of this statement? What actual informational content are you conveying?
And you seem to mean something by "guilty" that would itself be contentious, as I think you are smuggling in moral guilt rather than just legal guilt. At least that wouldn't be tautological. Sigh.
Next is your question-begging. "One is innocent" would be better stated as: "One is nothing at all" in a moral or legal sense. YOU have never established otherwise.
Again, the burden of proof is on YOU to explain why a single, fertilized cell is anything different from a skin cell. And your endless appeal to "soul" is just in need of its own explanation, which you never provide.
I could just as well ask it this way: WHAT leads you to think that a skin cell has no soul?
But, I predict that your "answer" to that question would just lead back into the small-circle that you call "reasoning."
When I first started discussing this with you, I had the sense that you were honestly trying to think this through. Now it seems instead that you are simply dogmatic and/or literally do not understand the nature of the vast shortcomings in your "explanations."
If that statement itself sounds "arrogant," so be it. I really don't care about your slippage into personality-talk. All I care about are truth-claims and the truth-conditions that would render them true. So far, you are offering neither.
Normally, like many threads in which I've taken a stab, I would just let this go as not worth the time and effort. But the problem here is that people like you are SERIOUSLY and continuously trying to establish public policy that would horrendously violate the KNOWN rights of real women. I'll fight that to the ends of the earth. If a philosopher and ethicist has any remaining value in the world, surely it would be in such a fight.
And if YOU intend to fight your fight for the "rights" of the "unborn," then you'll have to do a MUCH better job of explicating some very basic concepts your perspective depends upon. So far, you are quite obviously (to any unbiased mind) flailing!
|
|
philo
Trad climber
Is that light the end of the tunnel or a train?
|
|
|
Apr 27, 2014 - 07:16am PT
|
|
|
anita514
Gym climber
Great White North
|
|
|
Apr 27, 2014 - 10:49am PT
|
how predictable: a bunch of old white guys arguing about abortion and what a woman should or shouldn't be able to do with her own body.
|
|
anita514
Gym climber
Great White North
|
|
|
Apr 27, 2014 - 11:02am PT
|
I don't think very much, Bruce
women do/say lots, they just don't waste time arguing back and forth on the internet with a bunch of doofuses
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
|
Apr 27, 2014 - 11:06am PT
|
LOL .....
Anita just called Bruce a doofus.
3 ... 2 .... 1
Bruce will start flapping his keyboard mouth any second .......
|
|
anita514
Gym climber
Great White North
|
|
|
Apr 27, 2014 - 11:22am PT
|
btw I don't think Bruce is a doofus at all, but the rest of you...
|
|
philo
Trad climber
Is that light the end of the tunnel or a train?
|
|
|
Apr 27, 2014 - 12:17pm PT
|
Whoa John M quite uncivil.
|
|
Reilly
Mountain climber
The Other Monrovia- CA
|
|
|
Apr 27, 2014 - 12:17pm PT
|
Sully, as someone with Severe Reading Incomprehension Syndrome I want to know
why I should feel as insulted as John M does. I'll get back to my Sigrid Unset book now.
|
|
philo
Trad climber
Is that light the end of the tunnel or a train?
|
|
|
Apr 27, 2014 - 12:26pm PT
|
Cool. It was just so very surprising coming from you.
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
|
Apr 27, 2014 - 01:53pm PT
|
and what is the point of this thread?
John M wrote:
basically Reilly, I can't have an opinion on anything that happens to a woman because I'm a swinging sausage and have never experienced what they go through. So I have no f*#king say over whether a child is born or not. Since I am a male who found out later I had a child, but that child was aborted. I just have no say and she doesn't give a sh#t. Thats f*#ked up. Women want respect. Then they have to also offer it.
I don't know if he had created a fictitious event or not, but I'll respond to his scenario. If you claim to be in a relationship with a woman that would convey an equal say in the outcome of a sexual encounter, it is hard to understand how you might have not been involved in the decision. On the other hand, if that "relationship" was defined only by the sex it is not surprising at all. Respect is mutual, as you point out, and if you do not respect the fuller responsibility of the act then you might not be a part of the decisions regarding the outcome.
You might also not be deemed trustworthy in terms of the 18 year commitment raising a child to adulthood conveys. All a hypothetical discussion, of course. After all, commitment is best demonstrated by actions, and one's actions can often be contrary to one's talk... if there is any talk at all.
As for the question, "what does science have to do with it?" as far as the morality of abortion, one might look at the "natural history" of human reproduction for at least a baseline of what to expect in a "normal" pregnancy.
31% of all conceptions end in miscarriage naturally
http://www.nejm.org/doi/pdf/10.1056/NEJM198807283190401
only 50 to 60% of all conceptions advance beyond 20 weeks of gestation
http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMra000763
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miscariage
these estimates may be on the low side
http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/article/001488.htm
"Around half of all fertilized eggs die and are lost (aborted) spontaneously, usually before the woman knows she is pregnant."
This is not to demean the feelings of the "sanctity" of a person, or the potential represented by every conception. However, the most likely outcome of a conception is miscarriage, also referred to as "spontaneous abortion." And it is not uncommon among animals whose reproduction includes similar pregnancies. Humans are not exceptional in this regard, the biology of reproduction is shared across species.
And while I don't think it is necessary to have a religious or philosophical answer to the question: "why is spontaneous abortion so common?" it would seem to be a legitimate question in the context of these debates. Not to make too fine a point of it, one could make the case that "nature" is the largest "abortionist" (using the contemporary rhetoric). Why would that be so?
I fully recognize the complexity of the issues regarding individual liberty. Here the liberty of the mother is balanced against the liberty of the potential person. "Viability" seems to be the current boundary, if there is a societal interest, it cannot extend to the time before the "potentiality" of the person is real, that is, a viable life independent of the mother. The above statistics indicated that independent of the mother's intent, most of the conceptions do not result in persons. Does this mean that society should pursue a program of decreasing the rate of spontaneous abortions to zero in order to assure the liberty of a "potential person"? How that question is answered has to be relevant to this discussion. Taken to its extreme are all gametes subject to protection because they all have the potential to create a person? Should all mothers be provided with free health care, and supported throughout their pregnancy to bring it to a successful conclusion by the society that expresses the interest in that outcome? If society isn't going to do it, does it have any weight in the decision?
It is a complexity that does not spare the woman who must make the decision, either, though that voice is often drowned out in the debate. It is certainly an important voice to hear. My limited experience discussing this decision with women who are confronted with it has me conclude that it is an extremely difficult one, made with all the consequences understood, including the uncertainties related to the "potential person," and the commitment being a mother implies. In a strong relationship, the input of both partners in the decision is common. None of the decisions are easy to make, and "society" is fully represented in the manner of expected behaviors, cultural, philosophical and religious views, and an awareness of the immensity of the decision.
Reducing the discussion, as this thread does, to what are essentially trite one liners with out-of-context supporting evidence from rather dubious reporting in the press offends me (but I'll get over it). In particular, to politicize the issue for the purpose of defining voting demographics seems a horrific perversion of democracy. But such is our times.
Bottom line, science tells us that "spontaneous abortion" is not at all rare, it is actually common.
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
|
Apr 27, 2014 - 02:30pm PT
|
"your theorizing is incomplete."
no doubt, but the entire human species has depended on the ability to assess the consequences of having sex. And rather sophisticated behavior has evolved even though individuals may not have been "intellectually engaged" in the process (the wonders of evolution, this extends farther back than the human species).
You talk of "love", what's love go to do with it? Even before the concept of love there was reproduction... or not, depending on the consequences.
There is no reason to assume that those assessments were not fully considered in the scenario you have outlined even if neither of the parties were aware of it intellectually.
The consequences of sex are not the same for the male and the female (independent of the species). I don't see your argument for the idea that the decision should include equal weights from male and female participants. It has never been that way in natural history.
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
|
Apr 27, 2014 - 03:11pm PT
|
John M. you seem to have taken this very personally... which is one way of generating passion, but that can get in the way of seeing the larger issue.
If you want to make it a matter of personal responsibility, you had the opportunity to express that when you had sex, apparently in a manner that might lead to conception and pregnancy. Are you saying you had no responsibility at that point?
What were you thinking?
|
|
HighDesertDJ
Trad climber
|
|
|
Apr 27, 2014 - 03:16pm PT
|
Ed your post higher up the page is truly excellent. Also, how the hell did conspiracy theory chat turn into abortion chat?
|
|
HighDesertDJ
Trad climber
|
|
|
Apr 27, 2014 - 03:45pm PT
|
In 2008, researchers announced the discovery in human semen of hormones usually found in ovulating women. They theorized that follicle stimulating hormone, luteinising hormone, and estradiol may encourage ovulation in women exposed to semen. These hormones are not found in the semen of chimpanzees, suggesting this phenomenon may be a human male counter-strategy to concealed ovulation in human females. Other researchers are skeptical that the low levels of hormones found in semen could have any effect on ovulation.[11] One group of authors has theorized that concealed ovulation and menstruation were key factors in the development of symbolic culture in early human society.[12][13]
Holy crap, Ed. That is awesome.
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
|
Apr 27, 2014 - 03:49pm PT
|
Mad bolster, are you familiar with Daniel Haneman? Coincidentally, I did in fact at one time find you mildly irritating, but that had less to do with intuition and more to do with bias. I am still quite cynical of libertarianism in politics but all that fades to insignificance when I can see you are most interested in a process of integrity, rather than a process of bludgeoning your opposition for the sole purpose of "winning" .
No, I'm not familiar with him.
I totally get your sometime sense of irritation; online personas often cannot effectively convey tone, and I can certainly be "relentless" at times. But I do thank you for over time seeing through some of that to the core integrity with which I try (often unsuccessfully) to think. The human condition is one of moving from confusion to confusion, but I do indeed care about intellectual honesty. Thank you for seeing that.
Ed, thanks for some more corroborating notes regarding my upthread assertion that upwards of 50% of pregnancies spontaneously and naturally end in miscarriage. That scientific fact really undercuts the empirical intuitions grounding the "potential" argument.
Regarding the idea that old, white guys are the ones that really have power over women's bodies and reproductive rights, and even that we doofuses aren't accomplishing anything in debate....
First of all, I take EXTREME exception to being called old! Dang it... I am NOT! Not yet, anyway. So there!
Now, with that off my chest (whew!) I would just say that the objectivity of evidence and rational discussion about evidence knows no gender, class, race, or station boundaries. If a puking drunk in a gutter can manage to articulate a rational position on this subject, her (or his) contributions to the debate have innate value. A sausage, or lack thereof, is irrelevant to the objective facts and the implications that can rationally be drawn from them.
"In a republican nation, whose citizens are to be led by reason and persuasion and not by force, the art of reasoning becomes of the first importance" (Thomas Jefferson).
"Civilized life depends upon the success of reason in social intercourse, the prevalence of logic over violence in interpersonal conflict" (Juliana Geran Pilon).
One male; one female; same point.
Judith Jarvis Thompson, btw, is female; and her contributions to this discussion should be must-read for anybody presuming to publicize their thinking on the subject.
Bookie... have you been there and done that? Bluey?
|
|
SC seagoat
Trad climber
Santa Cruz CA
|
|
|
Apr 27, 2014 - 03:58pm PT
|
First of all, I take EXTREME exception to being called old! Dang it... I am NOT! Not yet, anyway. So there
I take EXTREME exception to the insinuation that there is something wrong with being old. I AM. So there. Proud of it.
An old and wise woman...
Susan
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
|
Apr 27, 2014 - 04:18pm PT
|
you implied that if it was a love relationship, then I should have known, and if I didn't know, then it was about sex.
sorry about that, I didn't mean to make the equivalence between a "relationship" and the presumption of responsibilities, and certainly nothing about "love."
I'm just saying that the asymmetries in the consequences of taking a pregnancy to term and raising the child to adulthood are the basis of a set of deeper assessments than cannot be expressed in a Shakespearean sonnet... they are evolutionarily deep. There are modern examples of those asymmetries (such as the differential compensation rate of males and females in the workforce due to child bearing).
But had you been involved in the decision making, what would you have decided?
|
|
BLUEBLOCR
Social climber
joshua tree
|
|
|
Apr 27, 2014 - 04:38pm PT
|
Good statements ED.
Bottom line, science tells us that "spontaneous abortion" is not at all rare, it is actually common.
This is a fact. I think if we were all Christians we would scientifically try to rectify this problem..
But I'm not taking a stance of Christianity here, just that of a citizen. IME, Christians argument against abortion has NEVER been to regulate a women's choice. Not at all! It is with pure relevance to the preciousness of life. When a woman becomes aware of being pregnant, she has a 75% chance of giving birth to a human being. Since a women's womb is the only place a human comes from why should she be the only one with a voice to say wether it lives or not? Exaggerating but, what if all women were to say they didn't want to give birth. All mankind could cease. Around the world millions of abortions have taken place because science showed the fetus to be a girl. And in some society's they feel that females aren't as useful as a males. Jus pointing out others ideas.
Here in the USA, Christians have fallen into the slump of trying to implement their ideals into laws. If they were Christ followers they could understand this is dumb and a sin. We started this country because we wanted a seperation between the state and church. We don't want the state telling us what to do, do we? When the makes a law like permitting people to smoke if their 18 or over. We must abide by that law just as everyone else, even if we don't agree with it. It is up to the morally advantaged Christian to preach on the benefits of not smoking.
The problem I see with Laws allocating things like smoking. Is that the undereducated people see it as OK if they're not breaking the law. We all know smoking is harmful to us, it's the number two killer in the US. But it seems to me that if the Law says it OK, IT should be responsible when my 52yro cousin dies of lung cancer.
Winston Churchill said, " I don't know how to define pornography, but I know it when I see it."
I think many Christians make up their minds by what their conscious (spirit) tells them. No one has the right to be anyone's judge, especially without ALL the individual facts. Unless of course it pertains to your own children.
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
|
Apr 27, 2014 - 04:41pm PT
|
I take EXTREME exception to the insinuation that there is something wrong with being old.
LOL... touche'!
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
|
Apr 27, 2014 - 04:42pm PT
|
Here in the USA, Christians have fallen into the slump of trying to implement their ideals into laws. If they were Christ followers they could understand this is dumb and a sin.
And there it is.
|
|
bluering
Trad climber
Santa Clara, CA
|
|
|
Apr 27, 2014 - 06:51pm PT
|
I thought I made it clear what a useless statement that is.
How about THIS useless (and comparable) "argument" of mine?
1) Everything in the universe is doubling in size each second.
2) If this sort of doubling is going on, then we simply MUST have laws in place to prevent the rich people from EVER doubling their wealth!
3) So, we MUST have laws in place to prevent the rich people from EVER doubling their wealth.
You argue using talk of souls like I argue using size-doubling.
You argue from vague claims about fetal "rights" like I argue from vague claims about the "rich."
Your attempt to move from such claims to assertions about public policy is like my attempt to move from such claims to assertions about public policy.
Your ongoing attempts to violate the actual rights of real people is akin to my argument's assertion that we must violate the actual rights of real people.
So, either explicate this "soul" and "baby" business, or admit that you have only vacuous claims to offer in "support" of your attempts to take over female reproductive rights.
This is a totally ridiculous assertion. You're comparing the creation of a baby to things magically doubling for no reason? Have you ever seen a baby being born?
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
|
Apr 27, 2014 - 06:59pm PT
|
This is a totally ridiculous assertion. You're comparing the creation of a baby to things magically doubling for no reason? Have you ever seen a baby being born?
I actually have been present at the birth of my then-girlfriend's baby (not mine, btw). Quite intimately involved, as a matter of fact.
And you are, yet again, totally missing the point.
I am not comparing the "creation of a baby" to everything doubling in size. I am comparing your entirely unsubstantiated "soul" claims to everything doubling in size.
You are in no way explaining "souls," yet your entire perspective and "argumentation" depends upon them.
Thus far, your appeal to "souls" is exactly comparable to my "argument" about everything in the universe doubling in size each second.
So, I'll ask AGAIN: Please explicate this "soul" business!
|
|
bluering
Trad climber
Santa Clara, CA
|
|
|
Apr 27, 2014 - 07:16pm PT
|
MadBolter1, I cannot offer you evidence of a soul. It's not a tangible thing. So, you win the argument. Everything is soul-less, there is no God, and you're right about everything. Kill at will.
|
|
philo
Trad climber
Is that light the end of the tunnel or a train?
|
|
|
Apr 27, 2014 - 07:40pm PT
|
Excellent cintune!
|
|
BLUEBLOCR
Social climber
joshua tree
|
|
|
Apr 27, 2014 - 08:07pm PT
|
So, I'll ask AGAIN: Please explicate this "soul" business!
I can feel for where Bluery is com'in from. But I'd almost say his language ain't to scientific..
The term "Soul" deffinitely came from a religious root. It's not scientific. From the bibles perspective, God surely paints a picture of the Souls awaiting to inhabit a human body. So for Christians to believe In eternal life, we must also think we were alive before this life. Just can't remember. But lookin around, I can easily see and imagine that the Creator of the universe could remember EVERY word I'd ever said. Or the count of hairs on my head. Christians with this point of view posses an intimate relationship with The Creator. And theirs to say God created the universe through thought by Love (Intelligent Design). He Spoke It into Existence! Where Evolution predicts visa-versa. So science cant comprehend the "soul".
|
|
anita514
Gym climber
Great White North
|
|
|
Apr 27, 2014 - 08:10pm PT
|
what are your thoughts on periods?
did you know that if you continue taking the "active" birth control pills without stopping, you pretty much eliminate your period?
there's usually 21 active pills in a package, and then 7 placebos. so you scrap the placebos, and just start a new pack and voilà, no period.
|
|
Norton
Social climber
the Wastelands
|
|
|
Apr 27, 2014 - 08:12pm PT
|
men talking about women stuff, Anita?
|
|
BLUEBLOCR
Social climber
joshua tree
|
|
|
Apr 27, 2014 - 08:21pm PT
|
Kill at will
Blurry, are you to drunk to see what you said?
Isn't it better to know what ur Say'in?
|
|
philo
Trad climber
Is that light the end of the tunnel or a train?
|
|
|
Apr 27, 2014 - 08:21pm PT
|
what are your thoughts on periods?
I've experienced some second hand that were really exclamation points.
|
|
BLUEBLOCR
Social climber
joshua tree
|
|
|
Apr 27, 2014 - 08:32pm PT
|
did you know that if you continue taking the "active" birth control pills without stopping, you pretty much eliminate your period?
Isn't your "period time" the only time you can get pregnant? So why not refrain being active at that time, I wonder?
Why wouldn't you expect a "birth control" PILL to effect that timing?
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
|
Apr 27, 2014 - 08:45pm PT
|
When a woman becomes aware of being pregnant, she has a 75% chance of giving birth to a human being. Since a women's womb is the only place a human comes from why should she be the only one with a voice to say wether it lives or not?
I find this rather confusing... the mother will invest 9 months in the gestation, and likely a decade or so in the raising of the child. It is a huge expenditure of her resources, resources which she may not have. Since she had the largest stake in the endeavor shouldn't she have a great deal to say about embarking on that endeavor? In an evolutionary sense reproductive behavior is well established, and includes the consideration, the assessment of that investment.
Exaggerating but, what if all women were to say they didn't want to give birth. All mankind could cease.
so what then of individual liberty? are you saying women must be compelled to give birth?
The other dilemma is even more thorny, what if humans (I prefer that over "mankind" which you observe would not exist without "womankind") would cease to exist if they didn't stop reproducing at the current rates?
|
|
BLUEBLOCR
Social climber
joshua tree
|
|
|
Apr 27, 2014 - 08:57pm PT
|
current rates?
Current rates haven't changed much since since old rates, have they?
Only the amount that have been able to live
|
|
BLUEBLOCR
Social climber
joshua tree
|
|
|
Apr 27, 2014 - 09:03pm PT
|
so what then of individual liberty? are you saying women must be compelled to give birth?
No. Jus that the survival of humans (mankind) should be up for debate amongst everyone!
|
|
BLUEBLOCR
Social climber
joshua tree
|
|
|
Apr 27, 2014 - 09:11pm PT
|
In an evolutionary sense reproductive behavior is well established, and includes the consideration, the assessment of that investment.
But animals only do it when their "horny" or in season. In a sense, the Christian moral of not having sex until married, thus "with a plan", goes against nature.
|
|
Byran
climber
San Jose, CA
|
|
|
Apr 27, 2014 - 09:31pm PT
|
Everything is soul-less, there is no God, and you're right about everything. Kill at will. Morality is not at all hinged on the existence of God or souls. You should try picking up a book or something on ethics. If your belief in God is the only thing keeping you from murdering your fellow humans, then you are by definition a psychopath.
It is obvious (at least to me) that this should not qualify as a human life
and that this SHOULD qualify as a human life..
Somewhere in that time it goes from a non-human to human. As is often the case, biology does not provide us with a clear dividing line. There is room for debate on when these rights of the individual should come into effect.
The soul however, is not something that has ever been scientifically tested. It is a religious concept which is taken on faith alone. So if you want to make the case that individual rights begin at conception, you need to do so without invoking a "soul"... at least if you believe that a 'separation of church and state' is something worth preserving.
|
|
BLUEBLOCR
Social climber
joshua tree
|
|
|
Apr 27, 2014 - 09:41pm PT
|
^^^^ Sure. So where, do you in the state, see life beginning?
|
|
Norton
Social climber
the Wastelands
|
|
|
Apr 27, 2014 - 09:49pm PT
|
life begins at the first impure thought
|
|
BLUEBLOCR
Social climber
joshua tree
|
|
|
Apr 27, 2014 - 10:16pm PT
|
^^^^
^^^^
The bluntness I can appreciate.
But the narrowness still confuses.
|
|
Byran
climber
San Jose, CA
|
|
|
Apr 27, 2014 - 10:23pm PT
|
^^^^ Sure. So where, do you in the state, see life beginning?
A few pages back, Madbolter made a convincing argument that the line should be drawn at viability of life outside the womb. In effect, you get individual rights when you begin your life as an individual.
Another way of looking at it would be to consider brain activity. From Wikipedia:
"Electrical brain activity is first detected between the 5th and 6th week of gestation, though this is still considered primitive neural activity rather than the beginning of conscious thought, something that develops much later in fetation. Synapses begin forming at 17 weeks, and at about week 28 begin to multiply at a rapid pace which continues until 3 to 4 months after birth"
If conservatives would focus their efforts on just limiting abortions to the first 10 weeks (little to no electrical activity), then everyone could actually take them seriously. (91% of abortions occur in the first trimester anyways, and most that don't are for extenuating circumstances). I don't have a strong opinion on the matter myself, other than I find it ridiculous that a woman should be prevented from terminating an embryo which doesn't even have a functioning nervous system.
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
|
Apr 27, 2014 - 10:40pm PT
|
Current rates haven't changed much since since old rates, have they?
Only the amount that have been able to live
the current rates have doubled the population in our life times... it's not a steady number of people, it's an exponentially growing number of people... and that isn't going to work out in the long run.
That's the thorny issue.
|
|
BLUEBLOCR
Social climber
joshua tree
|
|
|
Apr 27, 2014 - 11:33pm PT
|
I don't have a strong opinion on the matter myself, other than I find it ridiculous that a woman should be prevented from terminating an embryo which doesn't even have a functioning nervous system.
Well even if ur a Evolutionist, you can see there is a plan inplaceto give that embryo a nervous system! So as an Intelligent Design proponent, i can see a consciousness already planned. Thus in progress.
I'm willing to work on a time-line cut-off for which it would be illegal to abort. Along with an under age minor would need parental consent. And, if the abortion could have a negative effect to the mother. These would be my concern as a voter.
|
|
BLUEBLOCR
Social climber
joshua tree
|
|
|
Apr 27, 2014 - 11:51pm PT
|
^^^ yea socialism is prolly the best way to lead the sheeple
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
|
Apr 28, 2014 - 03:12pm PT
|
MadBolter1, I cannot offer you evidence of a soul. It's not a tangible thing. So, you win the argument. Everything is soul-less, there is no God, and you're right about everything. Kill at will.
That's a complete punt, and I'm not at all cowed by this thinly-veiled, actually in-your-face "capitulation."
I have not asked for "tangible" evidence! I've asked for ANY evidence, including (beyond empirical): rational or even Scriptural. ANYTHING at all.
Here, let me give you some clues. You could answer specific questions like these, just to give us an insight into your metaphysics:
1) Does a soul connect up with a body at the moment of human conception?
2) Does a soul connect up with the bodies of other species at the moment of their conception?
3) Does a soul's connection to a body get severed if the body is aborted?
4) What happens to a particular soul if its connection to a body is severed due to an abortion?
5) Are there, actually, "particular" souls, or is there some undifferentiated "soul stuff" that attaches to bodies and THEN becomes differentiated?
6) Are souls eternal, or do they spring into existence by some means when they get attached to bodies?
I could ask many more questions like these, but let's start with these, as even the answers to these will give us some initial insight into what you MEAN by a "soul."
Believe me, I am not opposed to the very notion of a soul. I am not a "naturalist" about metaphysics. I just expect a high level of rigor (and basic internal consistency) in any such theories, particularly when they are employed to justify legislation.
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
|
Apr 28, 2014 - 03:34pm PT
|
Hence, all these abortion haters are making God very mad, he told me so.
We are usually vehemently opposed to each other, Dr. F, so this is a rare opportunity to be on the same page about something.
I'll go you one better....
God is actually VERY MAD at these confused, pro-life "Christians," because most of them believe that these aborted babies jet straight to Heaven when they are aborted! God WANTS as many innocent souls in Heaven as He can possibly get (the Bible is clear about this), so He WANTS as much aborted conception to happen here on Earth as possible. If we could "factory farm" these souls straight into Heaven, that would be so much the better!
Now, I know that the foregoing paragraph is deeply offensive to many, but this paragraph actually reflects a SERIOUS internal consistency in the theology of most Christians. It is a serious enough problem that big guns like John Piper and R.C. Sproul devote chapters (plural) in books to resolving the (at least) paradox inherent in the mainstream theology!
And they do, to be frank, a PISS-POOR job of it!
They make God out to be some grand consequentialist, but then they cannot really wiggle out of the implications of their view. Their BEST response amounts to the lame claim: "Well, God ensures that these babies end up in Heaven where they ought to be, but He still holds the murderers responsible for their murders."
They never account for WHY abortion supposedly is murder, and they never account for why life is so sacred that, even when God Himself actually ensures its continuity (i.e.: no REAL death), this "murder" has real moral weight.
Conjoin a belief in immortal souls with the idea that the innocent jet straight to Heaven, and you have little left to even start to make a case for what "murder" actually IS. After all, if a being cannot REALLY die, then what IS a "murder?" It is nothing more than the termination of a physical body. But THAT turns out to be irrelevant, as we terminate "physical bodies" all the time that do not count as "murders."
When I scratch my arm and terminate the lives of millions of cells, I am told that this is not "murder" because these cells never had souls. But on Piper's and Sproul's view, so what? Souls don't NEED bodies to have everlasting life, and their connection with a body is, at best, a VERY transient and even seemingly pointless one. The body comes; the body goes; the soul goes on.
So, I kill a body that happened to be connected to a soul. Or I kill a body that didn't happen to be connected to a soul. So what? There is no practical difference and no genuine KILLING. The body is essentially (and I use that as a technical term) irrelevant! The SOUL is what has eternal life, and IT cannot be "murdered" by any means.
A soul never gets connected with a body, or a soul has its connection terminated "early" (whatever that means), and the net effect is IDENTICAL. You are still left with a soul that has everlasting life.
And God Himself ensures that He will literally "sort 'em out" to get the souls shuffled into the right places. So, FAR better to ensure that souls remain "innocent" (whatever that means) by GETTING them straight into Heaven asap, before they can be sullied by the "lusts of the flesh" that invariably occur almost immediately in the body.
No harm; no foul!
So, mainstream Christianity has a HARD row to hoe to explain exactly how its metaphysics even allow for "murder" in the morally-relevant sense at all, much more so the "murder" of the unborn.
|
|
bluering
Trad climber
Santa Clara, CA
|
|
|
Apr 28, 2014 - 09:09pm PT
|
That's a complete punt, and I'm not at all cowed by this thinly-veiled, actually in-your-face "capitulation."
I have not asked for "tangible" evidence! I've asked for ANY evidence, including (beyond empirical): rational or even Scriptural. ANYTHING at all.
I gave you my thoughts. What else do you want? I laid it out pretty well, but you chose to dismiss it. I chose to disagree with you. Why go on?
Here, let me give you some clues. You could answer specific questions like these, just to give us an insight into your metaphysics:
1) Does a soul connect up with a body at the moment of human conception?
Yes.
2) Does a soul connect up with the bodies of other species at the moment of their conception?
Yes
3) Does a soul's connection to a body get severed if the body is aborted?
Yes, it has died. Where it goes remains to be seen.
4) What happens to a particular soul if its connection to a body is severed due to an abortion?
Prolly saved due to the innocence. But I don't run the place.
5) Are there, actually, "particular" souls, or is there some undifferentiated "soul stuff" that attaches to bodies and THEN becomes differentiated? 6)
I don't know this answer.
Are souls eternal, or do they spring into existence by some means when they get attached to bodies?
Both.
I could ask many more questions like these, but let's start with these, as even the answers to these will give us some initial insight into what you MEAN by a "soul."
Believe me, I am not opposed to the very notion of a soul. I am not a "naturalist" about metaphysics. I just expect a high level of rigor (and basic internal consistency) in any such theories, particularly when they are employed to justify legislation.
|
|
sandstone conglomerate
climber
sharon conglomerate central
|
|
|
Apr 28, 2014 - 09:38pm PT
|
Blackness beyond this awareness. Nothing more. No eternal award, other than the recycling of your corporeal body via natural composition, etc. Like anaesthesia, except endless
|
|
bluering
Trad climber
Santa Clara, CA
|
|
|
Apr 28, 2014 - 09:46pm PT
|
Have you ever wondered why you are so un persuasive Bluey?
Ever notice I don't seem to care? I'm not trying to change your mind. Just explaining why I think you're wrong.
If that changes minds, fine. Everybody is entitled to their opinions, I'm just explaining mine.
|
|
bluering
Trad climber
Santa Clara, CA
|
|
|
Apr 28, 2014 - 10:06pm PT
|
MadBolter1 asked for my opinions, and I offered my thoughts.
Take that as you will.
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
|
Apr 29, 2014 - 12:14am PT
|
I appreciate you not backing down, Bluering. You show at least guts. Of course you know that what you've offered are opinions and not explanations. But at least I can better understand your fervency about the subject.
Honestly, I'm saddened that you had no actual explanations to offer; and I don't feel good about continuing to just poke holes. So, rather than to "win," as you say, I prefer to withdraw from the discussion with you.
If bookie can do better, well, perhaps he/she will give it a shot.
Meanwhile, I DO hope you have a sense of why public policy should not be based upon a perspective that by your own admission is metaphysically inexplicable. Of course you'll vote your mind and conscience, and more power to you. I continue to hope that discussions like this will even more settle the minds of voters as to why government has no place in deciding a woman's rights in her own body.
Thank you for engaging.
|
|
bluering
Trad climber
Santa Clara, CA
|
|
|
Apr 29, 2014 - 12:59am PT
|
No he asked for your explanation, not opinion.
Any 'explanation' on the souls of people has got to be opinion, it cannot be proven. But I gave my take on it.
As for the "Serb Nazis", do some research on the origins and nature of the "ethnic" Albanians. They were jihadist Muslims from all over the region.
Look at that area today. Dagestan, Chechnya, etc...It was the opening shots of the current war on radical Islam. As in Libya, we sided with the wrong side.
EDIT: Meanwhile, I DO hope you have a sense of why public policy should not be based upon a perspective that by your own admission is metaphysically inexplicable. Of course you'll vote your mind and conscience, and more power to you. I continue to hope that discussions like this will even more settle the minds of voters as to why government has no place in deciding a woman's rights in her own body.
Don't lecture me on the rights of a woman, I never mentioned anything of the sort. I never mentioned denying a woman any 'rights'. I was simply arguing that a fetus is more than 'medical waste', that can be burned for fuel like a bad liver or a cancer riddled organ.
Maybe human life that is destroyed should be treated with some respect.
|
|
bluering
Trad climber
Santa Clara, CA
|
|
|
Apr 29, 2014 - 02:02am PT
|
My data on Kosovo did not come from PatDollard.com, it was well established before I ever met him.
|
|
bluering
Trad climber
Santa Clara, CA
|
|
|
Apr 29, 2014 - 02:19am PT
|
Let me dig it up, Bruce. It's hard to come by.
And it's not just Bosnians, but Kosovars too.
Here's a tease. http://www.religioustolerance.org/war_koso.htm
But that ignores what started the conflict. It goes much deeper. And let me state at the outset that Serbs were not nice in their dealing with this issue.
Kinda like the Islamic conquer of Southern Europe and the consequential Crusades. Sometimes fire is met with fire. It's not really 'right', but it's retribution and correction of a problem.
Here's the key; https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20101125133602AApzN70
**1996: Albanese of the Kosovo create an army for independance, commit some terrorist murders of Serbian politicians, policemen.
**
This started everything.
|
|
bluering
Trad climber
Santa Clara, CA
|
|
|
Apr 29, 2014 - 02:38am PT
|
I'm not talking about 'old history', though it probably started there. It was a direct result of actions by the KLA against Serb politicians and civilians;
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Kosovo_War
**In 1996, an armed organization calling itself the Kosovo Liberation Army or KLA launched an insurgency with guerilla attacks on Serbian security forces and killing and kidnapping civilians. The stated cause for the rebellion was the struggle for human rights.
The KLA was financed by the Albanian diaspora from Western Europe, with funds that may have come from Albanian organized crime organizations involved in drug trafficking. The collapse of the Ponzi schemes in neighboring Albania brought people to streets. Many arms stockpiles were expropriated and weapons from them smuggled over mountainous border to the KLA. The ethnic Serbian Yugoslav security forces stationed in Kosovo would often found themselves besieged in towns they were ordered to held until their replacements arrived at the end of the month. By the Spring of 1998, the KLA controlled one third of the province. Belgrade decided that it had had enough and launched an offensive, deploying army tanks and sending reinforcements (many of them veterans of wars in Croatia and Bosnia).** The offensive was a temporary success and the KLA almost defeated. Many Albanian civilain refugees were forced to find shelter in the forests through the Spring and Summer of 1998. This situation reminded many on the brutal ethnic cleansing in Bosnia. Some observers offered a "wag the dog" explanation in which U.S. President Bill Clinton, then facing impeachment becuase of the Lewinsky scandal, hyped the human rights crisis to divert American attention and win a quick victory in international affairs. Other observers believe that he treated the crisis with the seriousness it deserved, given the horrors of the Bosnian War.
|
|
survival
Big Wall climber
Terrapin Station
|
|
|
Apr 29, 2014 - 09:24am PT
|
You boys should be snuggling in a Yugolatvia thread!
This here's the Mullah bookmar thread....HA!
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
|
Apr 29, 2014 - 11:31am PT
|
Don't lecture me on the rights of a woman, I never mentioned anything of the sort. I never mentioned denying a woman any 'rights'. I was simply arguing that a fetus is more than 'medical waste', that can be burned for fuel like a bad liver or a cancer riddled organ.
I was inclined to give you a pass earlier. Not anymore.
Look, you have not "argued" anything; you've done nothing but spout off with completely unsubstantiated "opinions."
And then when pressed, you punt and say that NO account of the soul even COULD be given. What's pathetic about that position is two-fold:
1) You seem to actually think that this punt makes your "opinion" as good as any other "opinion" out there. But it is NOT the case that "everybody's opinion is valid" (like, just because they hold it), or some crap like that. SOME opinions are flagrantly ridiculous, regardless of that fact that somebody believes them; and yours certainly SEEMS to fit that category. So, you don't get a pass with your punt.
2) A rigorous and plausible account CAN be given, and I even opened the door WIDE for you to offer a non-empirical case. Kant has done it. Nagel has done it. There's even a reasonable theological case that can be made (not by mainstream Christians, however!).
Of course, a reasonable theological case would, to my mind, merely provide some basis for a person to believe in the sacredness of the fetus; but that doesn't make ANY case for legislation! You claim to not be saying anything about legislation, but that's pretty disingenuous, given the nature of this thread.
In short, you have contributed nothing of substance to this discussion, yet you act like you have a valid view. Based on your discussion here, however, you DON'T.
You are unread, untutored, apparently pretty thoughtless on the subject, and nevertheless strongly opinionated. This is the worst possible combination in a civilized society!
(And for all the hand-waving, it's pretty clear that bookie is in the same boat.)
Maybe human life that is destroyed should be treated with some respect.
I absolutely agree, IF we're talking about PERSONS! But you have never even STARTED to make a case that a fetus is a person. And you have never even STARTED to distinguish between "human life" skin cells and "human life" fetuses. You just smuggle your opinion in everywhere, loading even the language of the discussion your way, but without ANY substantiation.
So, yet again, you just HAVE an opinion that you treat as though it is respectable (apparently just because you have it), although you have never bothered to do the hard work of assessing it for credibility or even presentability. You've had an opportunity in this thread to do some introspective assessment. But all you do is give yourself kudos for punting.
|
|
bluering
Trad climber
Santa Clara, CA
|
|
|
Apr 29, 2014 - 06:48pm PT
|
It doesn't matter what ethnicity or religion it's all about, the fascist bastards need to be identified and never forgotten. Not all Serbs are bastards obviously but my old neighbour was, despite being a swell guy to hang with. Apparently even the Bhuddists are right now demonstrating that even they can be fascist bastards.
Don't think for a second that I will not ride your ass into the ground on this Bluey. Capitulate or bring forth unchallengeable empirical evidence.
Take no prisoners
The Albanians started the conflict, and yes, the are accused of many war-crimes, including organ harvesting. They are not as innocent as many make the appear. And I'm not denying the viciousness of the Serbs. Let's just not forget what the Albanians had been doing.
http://www.theepochtimes.com/n3/601421-eu-creating-court-for-kosovo-war-crimes/
|
|
bluering
Trad climber
Santa Clara, CA
|
|
|
Apr 29, 2014 - 07:02pm PT
|
I was inclined to give you a pass earlier. Not anymore.
Look, you have not "argued" anything; you've done nothing but spout off with completely unsubstantiated "opinions."
And then when pressed, you punt and say that NO account of the soul even COULD be given. What's pathetic about that position is two-fold:
1) You seem to actually think that this punt makes your "opinion" as good as any other "opinion" out there. But it is NOT the case that "everybody's opinion is valid" (like, just because they hold it), or some crap like that. SOME opinions are flagrantly ridiculous, regardless of that fact that somebody believes them; and yours certainly SEEMS to fit that category. So, you don't get a pass with your punt.
2) A rigorous and plausible account CAN be given, and I even opened the door WIDE for you to offer a non-empirical case. Kant has done it. Nagel has done it. There's even a reasonable theological case that can be made (not by mainstream Christians, however!).
Of course, a reasonable theological case would, to my mind, merely provide some basis for a person to believe in the sacredness of the fetus; but that doesn't make ANY case for legislation! You claim to not be saying anything about legislation, but that's pretty disingenuous, given the nature of this thread.
In short, you have contributed nothing of substance to this discussion, yet you act like you have a valid view. Based on your discussion here, however, you DON'T.
You are unread, untutored, apparently pretty thoughtless on the subject, and nevertheless strongly opinionated. This is the worst possible combination in a civilized society!
MB1, I gave my opinions. Lighten up. Someone asked, I gave my opinions. This a forum where many things are discussed, and opinions are offered.
Please take your self-congratulatory arrogance and condescension to a theological forum or somewhere else.
|
|
happiegrrrl
Trad climber
www.climbaddictdesigns.com
|
|
|
Apr 29, 2014 - 07:18pm PT
|
Since this hasn't been addressed, and since the statement has the potential to to provide misinformation to young males who might read it and...rely?...on it as a form of birth control
Isn't your "period time" the only time you can get pregnant? So why not refrain being active at that time, I wonder?
Why wouldn't you expect a "birth control" PILL to effect that timing?
NO! pregnancy occurs around time of ovulation, and ovulation timing can be affected by a number of circumstances, and can be variable month to month. However:
Ovulation can be calculated by starting with the first day of the last menstrual period (LMP) or by calculating 12-16 days from the next expected period. Most women ovulate anywhere between Day 11 – Day 21 of their cycle, counting from the first day of the LMP.
Generally,when a woman is having her period,it is a time of lesser likelihood of becoming pregnant - but it is NOT a certainty. Considering timing of ovulation is a great idea if you are SEEKING to become pregnant, but a really poor way if he hope is to b avoiding pregnancy.
As for abortion -it has been something that has been done for as long as women understood the ramifications of bearing a child. It is NOT a recent development. what IS new.... is that women have access to safe, clean, reliable abortions, and aren't labeled as criminals if they have one.
Outlawing abortion will NOT end abortions; it would only take us back to unsafe, dirty procedures for those who have the capacity to follow through, and forced servitude for those who lack the resources.
|
|
bluering
Trad climber
Santa Clara, CA
|
|
|
Apr 29, 2014 - 07:26pm PT
|
Nice PSA, Happie!
Outlawing abortion will NOT end abortions; it would only take us back to unsafe, dirty procedures for those who have the capacity to follow through, and forced servitude for those who lack the resources.
Nobody is talking about eliminating abortions. Maybe keeping them to the first trimester, but c'mon.
|
|
survival
Big Wall climber
Terrapin Station
|
|
|
Apr 29, 2014 - 07:49pm PT
|
Maybe keeping them to the first trimester, but c'mon.
Think that would actually be acceptable to Mullah bookmar?
And why should we stop there if the zygote has a soul and all?
|
|
bluering
Trad climber
Santa Clara, CA
|
|
|
Apr 29, 2014 - 07:53pm PT
|
Think that would actually be acceptable to Mullah bookmar?
And why should we stop there if the zygote has a soul and all?
My personal opinions are different than what I feel is reasonably legal. I'm generally opposed to all abortions. Generally.
But I think the 1st trimester is plenty of time to make up your mind. And a reasonable compromise...
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
|
Apr 29, 2014 - 08:01pm PT
|
MB1, I gave my opinions. Lighten up. Someone asked, I gave my opinions. This a forum where many things are discussed, and opinions are offered.
Yes, and opinions are also shredded.
On this subject, I'm not likely to "lighten up." Unsubstantiated opinions on this subject in particular are profoundly dangerous to this society. Let the religious right get its way on this one, and the floodgates of oppression will open....
|
|
bluering
Trad climber
Santa Clara, CA
|
|
|
Apr 29, 2014 - 08:52pm PT
|
Unsubstantiated opinions on this subject in particular are profoundly dangerous to this society. Let the religious right get its way on this one, and the floodgates of oppression will open....
Look in the mirror, Johnson. I'm the one with unsubstantiated opinions? Nobody is calling for outlawing abortions.
|
|
bluering
Trad climber
Santa Clara, CA
|
|
|
Apr 29, 2014 - 09:06pm PT
|
Bluey, think of it this way. If you don't rank opinions by way of quality then why not just spin a bottle to chose one?
No one does that so the fact is is that everyone does in fact rank opinion including yourself. the question is how. There is method available that can predictably make the best choices, and there is also method that is well known and proven to make the worst choices.
I gave you my best opinion at the time with a little bit of thought. I could do more, but what's the point?
One of the worst is to agree with an opinion because the person who holds it expresses themselves with confidence of certainty, so long as it supports your own bias, while providing no credible weighting of evidence which requires consideration of alternatives. That is how Hitler persuaded people - by charisma and lies.
This neither here nor there. It's irrelevant.
If a person can't understand what I'm saying by the time they are a half century old, I doubt they will and quite literally I doubt you ever will. There is something stubbornly belligerent about your position that is only admirable to an authoritarian personality.
You must be right, and I must be wrong because I disagree with you? That's profound!
You obviously care about these things otherwise you wouldn't be so assertive. It is bizarrely perplexing that you would care yet not care why. Regardless the resultant gross error in your decisions is obvious. To place the moral culpability of the Serbs equal to their neighbours with such a flagrant conflation of fact is a prime example of bias corruption.
I can't say anything? You're censoring on Cmac's site?
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
|
Apr 29, 2014 - 09:15pm PT
|
Thank you, Jim. I truly appreciate that.
|
|
bluering
Trad climber
Santa Clara, CA
|
|
|
Apr 29, 2014 - 09:59pm PT
|
Whatever you say, Bruce. I thought I was pretty clear.
|
|
bluering
Trad climber
Santa Clara, CA
|
|
|
Apr 29, 2014 - 11:05pm PT
|
How about this: Bookworm has abandoned his own thread, one he has cared for almost singlehandedly for a year or something. Things suddenly get a little challenging and his silence is deafening.
Is that a yes I can, a no I can't or is it a no I won't ?
Your 'approved' answers don't fit the question at hand that you posed.
It is weird that he is gone, but maybe he's doing something. Climbing, or hiking, or something?
Let's sit it out B4 we pass judgment.
|
|
bluering
Trad climber
Santa Clara, CA
|
|
|
Apr 29, 2014 - 11:11pm PT
|
Explaining yourself is a form of respect. Refusal to explain is the opposite.
This is disingenuous bullshit whining. "Oh, bluey doesn't answer me the way I thought".
You and MadBolter1 think I have to succumb to your whims. I don't! In fact, I can even tell you to go f*#k yourselves. But I didn't. I tried to engage and offer my thoughts.
I'm not opposed to discussion. But let's be real.
|
|
bluering
Trad climber
Santa Clara, CA
|
|
|
Apr 29, 2014 - 11:38pm PT
|
Bruce, we've drug this thing over the coals enough. If you need more answers, I'll offer my best. I'm open to discussion.
|
|
bluering
Trad climber
Santa Clara, CA
|
|
|
Apr 29, 2014 - 11:47pm PT
|
Fracking, or Ukraine. Or new Benghazi revelations....
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
|
Apr 30, 2014 - 12:34am PT
|
Bruce, I really appreciate your careful, systematic way of describing the process and intentions of discussion.
Bluering, I'm not "demanding" anything. I offered an approach that could make your position plausible to a reasonable mind. It really is the only approach that could make your position plausible. If you don't agree with that statement, then please do let me know what "assessment approaches" are nothing like what I was asking for.
To me, a response that says (paraphrased) "I just have an opinion. I offered it. I can't explain it. Nobody can explain it...." Well, that defies "assessment approaches." So, it does not render your perspective plausible to reasonable minds that don't already agree with you.
I "demand" only that somebody trying to convince me of something offer explanations. If you don't or can't, no problem. I remain, then, unmoved by the perspective. So, I'm just saying that you arouse in me exactly zero sympathy for your perspective or for whatever process you employed to arrive at it or internally assess it (if you do).
|
|
bluering
Trad climber
Santa Clara, CA
|
|
|
Apr 30, 2014 - 01:04am PT
|
Bluering, I'm not "demanding" anything. I offered an approach that could make your position plausible to a reasonable mind. It really is the only approach that could make your position plausible
Have you offered your take on this yet, genius? You keep claiming everyone else is too stupid for you to deal with.
Why don't you enlighten us with your glorious insights?
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
|
Apr 30, 2014 - 01:42am PT
|
LOL... in the face of that sort of request, nah... I think not.
Besides, I think that I've already made it pretty clear that I think an early-stage fetus is nothing morally relevant. And I've actually argued for that perspective. The burden of proof is on the person that thinks the early-stage fetus is something over and above a skin cell on the moral-relevancy scale.
So, what do you think I need to explain?
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
|
Apr 30, 2014 - 11:55am PT
|
hope? how quaint...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reinforcement#Intermittent_reinforcements
Intermittent reinforcements[edit]
Pigeons experimented on in a scientific study were more responsive to intermittent reinforcements, than positive reinforcements.[16] In other words, pigeons were more prone to act when they only sometimes could get what they wanted. This effect was such that behavioral responses were maximized when the reward rate was at 50% (in other words, when the uncertainty was maximized), and would gradually decline toward values on either side of 50%.[17] R.B Sparkman, a journalist specialized on what motivates human behavior, claims this is also true for humans, and may in part explain human tendencies such as gambling addiction.[18]
|
|
happiegrrrl
Trad climber
www.climbaddictdesigns.com
|
|
|
Apr 30, 2014 - 02:11pm PT
|
Maybe keeping them to the first trimester, but c'mon.
think fast: What percentage of abortions in the US are performed after the 1st trimester?
Even Fox News posts that over 90% of US abortions are 1st trimester, and
...and only about 100 are performed in the third trimester (more than 24 weeks' gestation), approximately .01 percent of all abortions performed. source: http://www.foxnews.com/story/2003/06/17/fast-facts-us-abortion-statistics/
How many of those hundred do we suppose are other than some terribly unfortunate tragedy? Yet fundamentalists will have us believe that slatternly women are routinely aborting last trimester.
For some factual information on abortion statistics: http://www.prochoice.org/about_abortion/facts/women_who.html
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
|
Apr 30, 2014 - 04:07pm PT
|
Good points, Happy!
The debate here is really an "all or nothing" divide, as the religious right is really after a theocracy; abortion is just (they think) what ought to be an "obvious" thing we can all agree upon: WHO could seriously want to murder babies???
As you note, they completely obfuscate, because (as we've seen in the discussion on this very thread) it is NOT obvious that a single, fertilized cell is a "baby," and it's really hard to make the "baby" case during the whole first trimester. Hence the "life begins at conception" BS, and I say BS because the real issue has NEVER been about when "life" begins.
Thus, Bluering's "compromise" really gives the entire game away and would never be acceptable to the religious right.
And Rebumblecons have a SERIOUS problem with ever getting the presidency again, because the primary process has become more and more religious-right, with abortion being THE primary vetting issue. This means that a Rebumblecon candidate HAS to pander to the far right in order to get the nomination; but then THAT candidate is not generally electable. So he/she then spends all the time between the primary and the general election trying to "become" more "moderate," which leaves voters wondering, "Who IS this guy?"
As long as the religious right SO infests the Rebumblecon party, particularly the primary process, this is an increasingly daunting problem Rebumblecons face (over and above their many other problems).
One thing that would go FAR toward reducing this problem would be for "Christians" to get OFF of this abortion hobby-horse and quit vetting candidates largely by this measure alone.
|
|
bluering
Trad climber
Santa Clara, CA
|
|
|
Apr 30, 2014 - 08:23pm PT
|
think fast: What percentage of abortions in the US are performed after the 1st trimester?
Even Fox News posts that over 90% of US abortions are 1st trimester, and
So you, me, and FOX are in agreement!
|
|
bluering
Trad climber
Santa Clara, CA
|
|
|
Apr 30, 2014 - 08:28pm PT
|
LOL... in the face of that sort of request, nah... I think not.
Besides, I think that I've already made it pretty clear that I think an early-stage fetus is nothing morally relevant. And I've actually argued for that perspective. The burden of proof is on the person that thinks the early-stage fetus is something over and above a skin cell on the moral-relevancy scale.
So, what do you think I need to explain?
When does a clump of cells that will be a human being become relevant? Try to be specific.
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
|
Apr 30, 2014 - 10:57pm PT
|
When does a clump of cells that will be a human being become relevant? Try to be specific.
I already answered that question: At viability. That is when you have an independent entity that can be considered apart from the (mother's) body upon which it is otherwise entirely dependent for its existence.
Cut your finger off, and it dies and is nothing apart from the body it was part of.
Cut out a non-viable fetus, and it dies and is nothing apart from the body it was part of.
If you could cut off a finger and have it start growing and developing completely apart from the body it was once part of, you would certainly THEN have to start considering WHAT that thing IS and whether it should be considered to have individual rights.
In the case of a non-viable fetus, we don't have to worry about individual rights, because that thing is not an individual.
|
|
bluering
Trad climber
Santa Clara, CA
|
|
I already answered that question: At viability. That is when you have an independent entity that can be considered apart from the (mother's) body upon which it is otherwise entirely dependent for its existence.
When does that happen, even roughly? You appear to be dodging the original question.
|
|
anita514
Gym climber
Great White North
|
|
I would suggest the mother makes that call, Blue
Her opinion trumps all others
Others' opinions can influence her's, but she's the boss and the law agrees
|
|
survival
Big Wall climber
Terrapin Station
|
|
When does that happen, even roughly?
Blue, roughly 6+ months of gestation. How many fetuses are intentionally aborted after six plus months, even roughly?
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
Are you even roughly serious, Bluering?
Your whole approach to this is pretty transparent, so I'd like to just point out that there being just a bit of ambiguity on exactly when viability occurs is a FAR cry from your "account," which amounts to nothing more than: "The single cell has a soul, and I can't say anything about what that means, because nobody can."
However, there is not very much ambiguity, so in the interests of helping you see your way clear on this subject, I'll quote from an article on the National Institutes of Health site: "In the United States viability presently occurs at approximately 24 weeks of gestational age" (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11753511);.
You can note that viability varies country by country, as medical technology and neonatal care varies country by country. However, you can't push the line of viability back and back all the way to the single cell (yet), and in fact the further you push it back even with the best technology, the odds increase dramatically that you end up with a baby that is severely disabled (mentally and physically) throughout its life. So, if you try to push "viability" back very far, you end up with a being that really is never a truly independent and normally-developing individual.
So, in the USA, about 24 weeks (with risks!).
However, I believe that viability might be employed to provide a principled line regarding "independence," which is certainly a necessary condition for a fetus to be considered rights-bearing; but that line does not, to my mind, provide a "trumping" consideration regarding women's rights! Hence, I am very sympathetic to the statements upthread to the point that it's a woman's right to choose, regardless of the line that viability might draw.
Have you read anything from Judith Jarvis Thomson yet, Bluering? Or do you prefer to remain unread and untutored on this subject? I know you'll never actually read the Realm of Rights, so I'll just point you to a Wikipedia article that can give you a "Cliff's Notes" version: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Defense_of_Abortion
If you want to discuss at a level that is not transparently disingenuous, there is a rich field to mine in Thomson's work (and the attempted replies to it). Your caviling about viability is just nonsense. Get serious.
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
So, bookie has exactly zero response here, however now sharing his/her "wisdom" on other threads.
Rise to the challenges here, bookie, or just admit that you are NO thinker.
And as a non-thinker, spare us your other "contributions" on other threads.
|
|
survival
Big Wall climber
Terrapin Station
|
|
Bookie's selfie.
|
|
Reilly
Mountain climber
The Other Monrovia- CA
|
|
|
Jul 11, 2014 - 11:15am PT
|
Pretty sure incest is legal in Arkansas.
|
|
Port
Trad climber
San Diego
|
|
|
Jul 11, 2014 - 11:29am PT
|
Paranoia strikes deep
Into your life it will creep
It starts when you're always afraid
|
|
survival
Big Wall climber
Terrapin Station
|
|
|
Jul 11, 2014 - 11:36am PT
|
Oh, brave new nookworm, c#m thee out of thine closet.
The loudest screamers are the ones with the most to hide, eh reverend Swaggart? Or was it reverend Haggard?
[Click to View YouTube Video]
|
|
Gnome Ofthe Diabase
climber
Out Of Bed
|
|
|
Sep 27, 2014 - 03:22am PT
|
You know Me
Do you know Me
I Am
KNOW ME
KNEW TO YOU
AND YOU ARE
NEW TO ME
HUXLEY
|
|
nah000
climber
canuckistan
|
|
|
Sep 27, 2014 - 04:24am PT
|
love how the title of this thread is intended to denigrate those who bravely look outside of and take steps [even if they are sometimes mistaken] beyond the cave we continue to blinkingly emerge from. /s
nostalgia for a past that didn't exist is the soma of the dying and already dead.
|
|
Norwegian
Trad climber
dancin on the tip of god's middle finger
|
|
|
Nov 26, 2014 - 04:37am PT
|
all the things you
could contribute into
our collective morning;
and you choose this?
i just don't get it.
carry on though.
|
|
Port
Trad climber
Norwalk, CT
|
|
|
Nov 26, 2014 - 09:29am PT
|
The social programmers will (and are) working on getting us to accept pedophilia as well. Have a watch of Family Guy, sometime. Notice how the dog is always dating women, sleeping with them etc. Note how the baby is doing exactly the same thing with women, including making sexual inuuendos about it
Ahhhhh, as goes Family Guy so goes the world.
|
|
Studly
Trad climber
WA
|
|
Hey Bookworm, there is no liberalism. Nor is there conservativism. There is only Hollywood and you "true believers".
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
Oh, help me! THIS thread (and booky) has been resurrected?!?
It's like a zombie that just won't die.
Maybe that's because it has no head to head-shot!
|
|
dirtbag
climber
|
|
Bookworm, unfortunately, equates colorful anecdotes about liberalism as some kind of trend.
|
|
apogee
climber
Technically expert, safe belayer, can lead if easy
|
|
booky is still around?
I thought he bailed on us.
|
|
dirtbag
climber
|
|
May 6, 2015 - 12:48pm PT
The Australian Broadcasting Company has found a philosopher named Adam Swift who thinks [something nonsensical and absurd]
Not worthy of "hath wrought" or even a vague reference to classic literature.
Bookie's "hath wroughts" are getting progressively weaker.
HA! ... I said progressive!
Bookie's hath wroughts hath wrought Kos' hath wroughts.
|
|
survival
Big Wall climber
Terrapin Station
|
|
No worries Ron, if some Muslim fanatic gets in here all preachy, I'll take a swipe at them too, trust me.
Thanks for protecting my right to spew anything I want though!
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
|
May 17, 2015 - 03:32pm PT
|
How you get "censorship" out of that is beyond all reason.
|
|
Norton
Social climber
|
|
|
May 17, 2015 - 03:51pm PT
|
gees Bookworm
we just two good men in our climbing community
and you choose to post some irrational political/biblical crap, you horse's ass
|
|
bookworm
Social climber
Falls Church, VA
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - May 22, 2015 - 10:13am PT
|
this is what jonah goldberg meant by "liberal facism":
http://www.theamericanconservative.com/dreher/heads-christians-win-tails-they-lose/
synopsis: lesbians ask jeweler to make wedding rings; jeweler makes rings; lesbians are happy with the rings and the courteous service; lesbians marry and live happily ever after until lesbians discover jeweler opposes same-sex marriage; lesbians feel traumatized and demand refund; jeweler is harassed with hateful emails and gives lesbians refund
yeah, that whole thing about simply wanting "equal protection" and non-discrimination was just a ruse...we want to punish you for your thoughts
winston smith is dead
|
|
| Messages 1 - 300 of total 300 in this topic |
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!