VA senate pushes through ultrasound/personhood bill (abortion related, slightly rapey)

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 NEXT
 

Seekster:

PercyBoleyn:

Seekster:
snip

From a moral standpoint, if you subscribe to the idea that all life is sacred then any killing is unjustifiable. You also failed to answer my question. Do you agree that only a particular type of life is sacred?

No all life is sacred and it is immoral to take a life.

Having said that I think the point is worth clarifying that not all life is equally sacred. A human life for example is more sacred than that of a animal and certainly more than a plant. That is what I believe anyway.

Also you seem to not grasp what I said earlier. Just because something is immoral does not mean it cannot be justified. Do you not understand this? If you don't I can give you more examples.

Stagnant:

Seekster:
snip

I spent a while writing a long response, but then my browser ate it. -.- So here's the short version:

If you can't bring yourself to force the woman to have the baby, then one of two things is happening:
1. You are morally repugnant and willing to kill an innocent third party for the convenience of someone (even if they have already been put through the wringer, this is really bad). Akin to, say, someone being allowed to kill the Jehovah's Witnesses at the door because they were attacked by an insane man with a knife.
2. You don't actually believe that a fetus is a person that deserves the same rights that you or I have.
I think the latter is true. I honestly think that there are very, very few people who genuinely believe, when it really comes down to it, that a fetus is deserving of the same rights as the rest of us. Those few people (your mother, Santorum) tend to get a lot of flack when they bring that opinion out into the public arena... And it should be clear why.

The side of caution in this case is the one that clearly does not destroy an individual's right to sovereignty over their own body. This right is incredibly important for a number of reasons, and abridging it because the fetus might deserve the right to life, when it's not even clear whether the question is objective or not (and, in fact, I'd lean heavily towards it being subjective to begin with) is not a good idea. We cannot abridge rights because of maybes, and we certainly can't abridge them because of opinions.

"Baby" is a general term for a born human being. That doesn't mean that I consider it a recipient of the general rights of humans at birth, it's simply an accurate definition of the term. My limit on abortions that are not directly endangering the mother is approximately the 24th week, where the fetus starts obtaining limited brain functions.

Hate is when the browser does that, you have my sincere sympathies.

I disagree with both of your ideas and for the record you may want to look at this:

http://www.gallup.com/poll/118399/more-americans-pro-life-than-pro-choice-first-time.aspx

It is you, not I, who is in the minority, in the United States at least. European countries see themselves as ahead of the curve, what they call a curve I call a precipice and they are running headlong over it.

"The side of caution in this case is the one that clearly does not destroy an individual's right to sovereignty over their own body. This right is incredibly important for a number of reasons, and abridging it because the fetus might deserve the right to life, when it's not even clear whether the question is objective or not (and, in fact, I'd lean heavily towards it being subjective to begin with) is not a good idea. We cannot abridge rights because of maybes, and we certainly can't abridge them because of opinions."

Which is more important, the right to privacy or the right to life? Any sane person will answer life so I assume you will as well. Now then if indeed we are not certain whether or not a fetus is a life then it only makes sense that the side of caution would be to avoid the possibility of violating the right to life than to avoid the possibility of violating the right to privacy (which again is pretty shaky, a woman has an absolute right to her own body yes, but we arent just talking about her body).

At the absolute least our civilization should ban or heavily restrict the use of abortion after the beginning of the Second Trimester.

I can use that same poll against you. Pro-Life is of course going to get a positive reaction, that is why they use the term. What they do have trouble against however is the question of legal or illegal abortion. You should probably note that while 51% said they were pro-life, a total of 76% said that abortion should be either unrestricted or allowed depending on the situation.

Of course this is to be expected of Americans. There is also a strong correlation between conservatives and the death penalty, which of course is the ultimate case of irony since they are also the dominate 'pro-life' group, so it is expected that they are not all that fussed about abortion either, as long as they can say they are pro-life and pro-justice everything is fine.

Seekster:
snip

So you're basically asigning a superiority clause to humanity whilst degreeing that animal life is inferior. Can you provide any logical reason as to why animal life is not as important as human life?

Also, there are no such things as degrees of sacredness. The term is not relative. Either all life is sacred or none is. So which is it?

PercyBoleyn:

Seekster:
snip

So you're basically asigning a superiority clause to humanity whilst degreeing that animal life is inferior. Can you provide any logical reason as to why animal life is not as important as human life?

Also, there are no such things as degrees of sacredness. The term is not relative. Either all life is sacred or none is. So which is it?

Logic does not dictate that life has any value at all so it is good that logic is not the key determining method in this conversation. Logic is good but unless balanced by reason and morality logic can lead to some very dangerous things (for example its illogical to take care of the old or permanently disabled as they cannot contribute enough to society to justify the cost of caring for them. Obviously we take care of them anyway).

I am not sure if my belief that human life is worth more than the life of other creatures is based on religious beliefs or species bias (I am a human so obviously I am going to be biased in favor of humans) but look at it this way. If an animal attacks and kills a human being then that animal is automatically hunted down and killed. Humans can be executed for murdering other humans, but since both the killer and the victim or human more care is taken with punishing the killer and their life may actually be spared.

Of course there are degrees of sacredness, how can there not be? Is not the right to life more sacred than the right to say own a firearm or even to vote?

pyrate:

Seekster:

PercyBoleyn:

From a moral standpoint, if you subscribe to the idea that all life is sacred then any killing is unjustifiable. You also failed to answer my question. Do you agree that only a particular type of life is sacred?

No all life is sacred and it is immoral to take a life.

Having said that I think the point is worth clarifying that not all life is equally sacred. A human life for example is more sacred than that of a animal and certainly more than a plant. That is what I believe anyway.

Also you seem to not grasp what I said earlier. Just because something is immoral does not mean it cannot be justified. Do you not understand this? If you don't I can give you more examples.

Stagnant:

I spent a while writing a long response, but then my browser ate it. -.- So here's the short version:

If you can't bring yourself to force the woman to have the baby, then one of two things is happening:
1. You are morally repugnant and willing to kill an innocent third party for the convenience of someone (even if they have already been put through the wringer, this is really bad). Akin to, say, someone being allowed to kill the Jehovah's Witnesses at the door because they were attacked by an insane man with a knife.
2. You don't actually believe that a fetus is a person that deserves the same rights that you or I have.
I think the latter is true. I honestly think that there are very, very few people who genuinely believe, when it really comes down to it, that a fetus is deserving of the same rights as the rest of us. Those few people (your mother, Santorum) tend to get a lot of flack when they bring that opinion out into the public arena... And it should be clear why.

The side of caution in this case is the one that clearly does not destroy an individual's right to sovereignty over their own body. This right is incredibly important for a number of reasons, and abridging it because the fetus might deserve the right to life, when it's not even clear whether the question is objective or not (and, in fact, I'd lean heavily towards it being subjective to begin with) is not a good idea. We cannot abridge rights because of maybes, and we certainly can't abridge them because of opinions.

"Baby" is a general term for a born human being. That doesn't mean that I consider it a recipient of the general rights of humans at birth, it's simply an accurate definition of the term. My limit on abortions that are not directly endangering the mother is approximately the 24th week, where the fetus starts obtaining limited brain functions.

Hate is when the browser does that, you have my sincere sympathies.

I disagree with both of your ideas and for the record you may want to look at this:

http://www.gallup.com/poll/118399/more-americans-pro-life-than-pro-choice-first-time.aspx

It is you, not I, who is in the minority, in the United States at least. European countries see themselves as ahead of the curve, what they call a curve I call a precipice and they are running headlong over it.

"The side of caution in this case is the one that clearly does not destroy an individual's right to sovereignty over their own body. This right is incredibly important for a number of reasons, and abridging it because the fetus might deserve the right to life, when it's not even clear whether the question is objective or not (and, in fact, I'd lean heavily towards it being subjective to begin with) is not a good idea. We cannot abridge rights because of maybes, and we certainly can't abridge them because of opinions."

Which is more important, the right to privacy or the right to life? Any sane person will answer life so I assume you will as well. Now then if indeed we are not certain whether or not a fetus is a life then it only makes sense that the side of caution would be to avoid the possibility of violating the right to life than to avoid the possibility of violating the right to privacy (which again is pretty shaky, a woman has an absolute right to her own body yes, but we arent just talking about her body).

At the absolute least our civilization should ban or heavily restrict the use of abortion after the beginning of the Second Trimester.

I can use that same poll against you. Pro-Life is of course going to get a positive reaction, that is why they use the term. What they do have trouble against however is the question of legal or illegal abortion. You should probably note that while 51% said they were pro-life, a total of 76% said that abortion should be either unrestricted or allowed depending on the situation.

Of course this is to be expected of Americans. There is also a strong correlation between conservatives and the death penalty, which of course is the ultimate case of irony since they are also the dominate 'pro-life' group, so it is expected that they are not all that fussed about abortion either, as long as they can say they are pro-life and pro-justice everything is fine.

The point is your effort to paint those who oppose abortion as some small crazy minority is great contradiction of the facts (in America at least, like I said Europe seems intent on being ahead of the curve even if that curve is actually the precipice of a cliff).

Seekster:

PercyBoleyn:

Seekster:
snip

So you're basically asigning a superiority clause to humanity whilst degreeing that animal life is inferior. Can you provide any logical reason as to why animal life is not as important as human life?

Also, there are no such things as degrees of sacredness. The term is not relative. Either all life is sacred or none is. So which is it?

Logic does not dictate that life has any value at all so it is good that logic is not the key determining method in this conversation. Logic is good but unless balanced by reason and morality logic can lead to some very dangerous things (for example its illogical to take care of the old or permanently disabled as they cannot contribute enough to society to justify the cost of caring for them. Obviously we take care of them anyway).

I am not sure if my belief that human life is worth more than the life of other creatures is based on religious beliefs or species bias (I am a human so obviously I am going to be biased in favor of humans) but look at it this way. If an animal attacks and kills a human being then that animal is automatically hunted down and killed. Humans can be executed for murdering other humans, but since both the killer and the victim or human more care is taken with punishing the killer and their life may actually be spared.

Of course there are degrees of sacredness, how can there not be? Is not the right to life more sacred than the right to say own a firearm or even to vote?

do you accept that people may judge these "degrees of sacredness" differently? that the 'life' of a human embryo may not be as sacred as that of a newborn infant? that it may not be as sacred as a woman's right to make medical decisions about her own body?

Seekster:
The point is your effort to paint those who oppose abortion as some small crazy minority is great contradiction of the facts

Is it? The actual number of people who oppose abortion is tiny. If it's a thousand in all the US I'd eat my socks.

A large group are ignorant people who grew up in sheltered lives, who are indoctrinated by their priests to pass judgement about something they don't understand. Confront them with what pro-life actually is, and they will all change their opinion.

You for instance have never been raped and have never been pregnant against your will, so you're not entitled to an opinion that passes judgement about people who are in that situation.

cobra_ky:

Seekster:

PercyBoleyn:

So you're basically asigning a superiority clause to humanity whilst degreeing that animal life is inferior. Can you provide any logical reason as to why animal life is not as important as human life?

Also, there are no such things as degrees of sacredness. The term is not relative. Either all life is sacred or none is. So which is it?

Logic does not dictate that life has any value at all so it is good that logic is not the key determining method in this conversation. Logic is good but unless balanced by reason and morality logic can lead to some very dangerous things (for example its illogical to take care of the old or permanently disabled as they cannot contribute enough to society to justify the cost of caring for them. Obviously we take care of them anyway).

I am not sure if my belief that human life is worth more than the life of other creatures is based on religious beliefs or species bias (I am a human so obviously I am going to be biased in favor of humans) but look at it this way. If an animal attacks and kills a human being then that animal is automatically hunted down and killed. Humans can be executed for murdering other humans, but since both the killer and the victim or human more care is taken with punishing the killer and their life may actually be spared.

Of course there are degrees of sacredness, how can there not be? Is not the right to life more sacred than the right to say own a firearm or even to vote?

do you accept that people may judge these "degrees of sacredness" differently? that the 'life' of a human embryo may not be as sacred as that of a newborn infant? that it may not be as sacred as a woman's right to make medical decisions about her own body?

Well yes everyone has different variations of generally accepted morality but surely even pro-choice people can see some importance in the life of a fetus or unborn baby. My counter to the "woman's body" argument is that 1. Its not JUST her body we are talking about in most cases. 2. Since we do not know conclusively when life begins it is best to err on the side of caution. One can make amends if there is a violation of privacy but you cannot bring the dead back to life. If we make a mistake it is better to make one we know we can make amends for than one that cannot be reversed.

This will get overturned fast as it is effectively state sponsored rape.

Nice to see Christian values being upheld.

Blablahb:

Seekster:
The point is your effort to paint those who oppose abortion as some small crazy minority is great contradiction of the facts

Is it? The actual number of people who oppose abortion is tiny. If it's a thousand in all the US I'd eat my socks.

A large group are ignorant people who grew up in sheltered lives, who are indoctrinated by their priests to pass judgement about something they don't understand. Confront them with what pro-life actually is, and they will all change their opinion.

You for instance have never been raped and have never been pregnant against your will, so you're not entitled to an opinion that passes judgement about people who are in that situation.

"A large group are ignorant people who grew up in sheltered lives, who are indoctrinated by their priests to pass judgement about something they don't understand. Confront them with what pro-life actually is, and they will all change their opinion."

Yeah yeah and the Syrian's all love Assad except for those "armed gangs".

The numbers speak for themselves. If you want to argue that most of the people who say they oppose abortion are just incredibly ignorant then you are on your own dude. Arguing that the other side is stupid and doesnt know better isnt going to get us anywhere (that has got to be some kind of fallacy right?)

"You for instance have never been raped and have never been pregnant against your will, so you're not entitled to an opinion that passes judgement about people who are in that situation."

And now we come to "oh your not a woman so your opinion on this issue doesn't matter" fallacy. Its the last refuge for those losing the pro-choice argument.

Seekster:
Where in the heck do you get the idea that MY arguments are the ones being demolished? I've yet to see a single argument in favor of abortion that can stand on its own merits.

Hi, my name is Stagnant, have we met? I've been completely and utterly destroying your entire epistemology for the last 3 pages or so.

Too drunk to address the other post right now. Will do it later or something.

Stagnant:

Seekster:
Where in the heck do you get the idea that MY arguments are the ones being demolished? I've yet to see a single argument in favor of abortion that can stand on its own merits.

Hi, my name is Stagnant, have we met? I've been completely and utterly destroying your entire epistemology for the last 3 pages or so.

Too drunk to address the other post right now. Will do it later or something.

*Hands Stagnant some coffee*

Must have been some dream, how does that smell?

Seekster:

Where in the heck do you get the idea that MY arguments are the ones being demolished?

The fact that the counter-arguments in those two posts, and other peoples', remain conspicuously ignored.

I've yet to see a single argument in favor of abortion that can stand on its own merits.

Besides all those refutations of your points?

The argument in favour of abortion is that of free will. The arguments against it concern protection of prenatal life. The status quo, where the morality and legality of abortions are judged by trimester, provides the best balance between those two desires.

If you didn't even gather that that was the opposing view from the dozens of posts and your general knowledge then you should consider yourself biased to the point of rendering debate futile.

Danny Ocean:

Seekster:

Where in the heck do you get the idea that MY arguments are the ones being demolished?

The fact that the counter-arguments in those two posts, and other peoples', remain conspicuously ignored.

I've yet to see a single argument in favor of abortion that can stand on its own merits.

Besides all those refutations of your points?

The argument in favour of abortion is that of free will. The arguments against it concern protection of prenatal life. The status quo, where the morality and legality of abortions are judged by trimester, provides the best balance between those two desires.

If you didn't even gather that that was the opposing view from the dozens of posts and your general knowledge then you should consider yourself biased to the point of rendering debate futile.

What counterarguments have I not dealt with yet?

Nobody has refuted my points (trying is nice but nobody has succeeded).

How the heck is abortion an argument about free will (you know, outside of how you can relate free will to pretty much any issue in an abstract way)?

BTW the Trimester system is not official anymore, it got thrown out by the Supreme Court later after Roe v Wade.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roe_v._Wade#Role_in_subsequent_decisions_and_politics

"In addition to White and Rehnquist, Reagan appointee Sandra Day O'Connor began dissenting from the Court's abortion cases, arguing in 1983 that the trimester-based analysis devised by the Roe Court was "unworkable."[77] Shortly before his retirement from the bench, Chief Justice Warren Burger suggested in 1986 that Roe be "reexamined";[78] the associate justice who filled Burger's place on the Court-Justice Antonin Scalia-vigorously opposed Roe. Concern about overturning Roe played a major role in the defeat of Robert Bork's nomination to the Court in 1987; the man eventually appointed to replace Roe-supporter Lewis Powell was Anthony M. Kennedy."

"In a 5-4 decision in 1989's Webster v. Reproductive Health Services, Chief Justice Rehnquist, writing for the Court, declined to explicitly overrule Roe, because "none of the challenged provisions of the Missouri Act properly before us conflict with the Constitution."[80] In this case, the Court upheld several abortion restrictions, and modified the Roe trimester framework.[80]

In concurring opinions, O'Connor refused to reconsider Roe, and Justice Antonin Scalia criticized the Court and O'Connor for not overruling Roe.[80] Blackmun - author of the Roe opinion - stated in his dissent that White, Kennedy and Rehnquist were "callous" and "deceptive," that they deserved to be charged with "cowardice and illegitimacy," and that their plurality opinion "foments disregard for the law."[80] White had recently opined that the majority reasoning in Roe v. Wade was "warped.""

Seekster:
Logic does not dictate that life has any value at all so it is good that logic is not the key determining method in this conversation. Logic is good but unless balanced by reason and morality logic can lead to some very dangerous things (for example its illogical to take care of the old or permanently disabled as they cannot contribute enough to society to justify the cost of caring for them. Obviously we take care of them anyway).

The reason we take care of the old and the disabled is because we can afford to do so. We're no longer bound by our biological limitations, our main goal has gone beyond simple survival. If we were still slaves to our basic instincts the disabled would be left to die and we wouldn't have any old people to take care of. Essentially, we've created our own standards of survival and adapted to those as opposed to adaptating to whatever shit nature throws our way. We've become slaves to a different form of "instinct", our emotions. It encourages us to survive as a group which is what allowed us to become the most advanced species on Earth.

Seekster:
I am not sure if my belief that human life is worth more than the life of other creatures is based on religious beliefs or species bias (I am a human so obviously I am going to be biased in favor of humans) but look at it this way. If an animal attacks and kills a human being then that animal is automatically hunted down and killed. Humans can be executed for murdering other humans, but since both the killer and the victim or human more care is taken with punishing the killer and their life may actually be spared.

But that proves one thing, that not all life is sacred and worth preserving. That animal did nothing wrong, it did exactly what it was supposed to do and what allowed it to survive to this day and yet we put our biological imperative above theirs. "We're more important than mindless animals" is what we as a species believe. If you subscribe to the idea that all life is sacred then the idea that we're somehow superior to other forms of life is contradictory.

You cannot have one and the other. Either all life is sacred and deserving of the righ to live which would make any killing morally unjustifiable and unacceptable or just intelligent life is which would make killing animals morally justifiable and acceptable. If you put your needs above the needs of another form of life and yet subscribe to the idea that all life is sacred you are contradicting your beliefs. There are no ifs and buts here.

Seekster:
Of course there are degrees of sacredness, how can there not be? Is not the right to life more sacred than the right to say own a firearm or even to vote?

I'm talking specifically about the right to live here, not the right to own firearms or vote. There are no degrees when it comes to a living being's righ to live. Either all living beings have the right to live or just a select few. If you put your own needs above the needs of another living being then you're contradicting the belief that all life has the right to live.

You say that life is sacred and undeserving of death but then you turn around and make it quite clear that the survival of your species trumps another specie's right to live.

You say that it is morally justifiable to kill other living beings for survival but support killing other living beings for doing the exact same thing if the living being in question happens to be part of your species.

If your ideals are based around the idea that all life has the right to live but you entertain the above exceptions then you're contradicting yourself.

A more appropiate train of thought would be that only your species has the right to live but then you'd have to provide a moral reason why that is so. Most people cite intelligence, I'm assuming you will too.

With that out fo the way I'm going to ask you again.

Do all living beings have the right to live or just a select few?

Sorry for the short posts, lots going on.

PercyBoleyn:

Seekster:
Logic does not dictate that life has any value at all so it is good that logic is not the key determining method in this conversation. Logic is good but unless balanced by reason and morality logic can lead to some very dangerous things (for example its illogical to take care of the old or permanently disabled as they cannot contribute enough to society to justify the cost of caring for them. Obviously we take care of them anyway).

The reason we take care of the old and the disabled is because we can afford to do so. We're no longer bound by our biological limitations, our main goal has gone beyond simple survival. If we were still slaves to our basic instincts the disabled would be left to die and we wouldn't have any old people to take care of. Essentially, we've created our own standards of survival and adapted to those as opposed to adaptating to whatever shit nature throws our way. We've become slaves to a different form of "instinct", our emotions. It encourages us to survive as a group which is what allowed us to become the most advanced species on Earth.

We take care of the old and disabled because its the right thing to do.

PercyBoleyn:

Seekster:
I am not sure if my belief that human life is worth more than the life of other creatures is based on religious beliefs or species bias (I am a human so obviously I am going to be biased in favor of humans) but look at it this way. If an animal attacks and kills a human being then that animal is automatically hunted down and killed. Humans can be executed for murdering other humans, but since both the killer and the victim or human more care is taken with punishing the killer and their life may actually be spared.

But that proves one thing, that not all life is sacred and worth preserving. That animal did nothing wrong, it did exactly what it was supposed to do and what allowed it to survive to this day and yet we put our biological imperative above theirs. "We're more important than mindless animals" is what we as a species believe. If you subscribe to the idea that all life is sacred then the idea that we're somehow superior to other forms of life is contradictory.

You cannot have one and the other. Either all life is sacred and deserving of the righ to live which would make any killing morally unjustifiable and unacceptable or just intelligent life is which would make killing animals morally justifiable and acceptable. If you put your needs above the needs of another form of life and yet subscribe to the idea that all life is sacred you are contradicting your beliefs. There are no ifs and buts here.

How on Earth does that prove that all life is not sacred?

Why are you talking in absolutes? A few posts ago people were criticizing me because they thought I was talking in absolutes.

PercyBoleyn:

Seekster:
Of course there are degrees of sacredness, how can there not be? Is not the right to life more sacred than the right to say own a firearm or even to vote?

I'm talking specifically about the right to live here, not the right to own firearms or vote. There are no degrees when it comes to a living being's righ to live. Either all living beings have the right to live or just a select few. If you put your own needs above the needs of another living being then you're contradicting the belief that all life has the right to live.

You say that life is sacred and undeserving of death but then you turn around and make it quite clear that the survival of your species trumps another specie's right to live.

You say that it is morally justifiable to kill other living beings for survival but support killing other living beings for doing the exact same thing if the living being in question happens to be part of your species.

If your ideals are based around the idea that all life has the right to live but you entertain the above exceptions then you're contradicting yourself.

A more appropiate train of thought would be that only your species has the right to live but then you'd have to provide a moral reason why that is so. Most people cite intelligence, I'm assuming you will too.

With that out fo the way I'm going to ask you again.

Do all living beings have the right to live or just a select few?

Like talking to a brick wall, are you going to just keep asking the question until you get an answer you can properly criticize? I already answered your question, its really not my fault you refuse to accept my answer.

Well it only took till halfway down the first page the first page before we had someone agreeing with this legislation (Seekster) and outing themselves as being a pro-state sponsored rape, pro more spending, pro big government conservative (Shame on everyone for not noticing this and only focusing on his anti-freedom, anti-choice, anti-woman views). His views, repeated many times over the years, though do make me wonder, is Seekster just allergic to pussy or does he just hate anyone with one?

Could we please ignore the crazy religious person and discuss the legislation itself, it's legal implications and how long it'll take before it gets struck down for being unconstitutional?

Seekster:
Where in the heck do you get the idea that MY arguments are the ones being demolished? I've yet to see a single argument in favor of abortion that can stand on its own merits.

Demolishing your arguments isn't the same as presenting an argument for abortion.

Which is more important, the right to privacy or the right to life? Any sane person will answer life so I assume you will as well. Now then if indeed we are not certain whether or not a fetus is a life then it only makes sense that the side of caution would be to avoid the possibility of violating the right to life than to avoid the possibility of violating the right to privacy (which again is pretty shaky, a woman has an absolute right to her own body yes, but we arent just talking about her body).

So it's your position that a woman's right to remove unwanted objects from her uterus is 'shaky'.

I think I can see why you don't think much of arguments for choice.

TheGuy(wantstobe):
Well it only took till halfway down the first page the first page before we had someone agreeing with this legislation (Seekster) and outing themselves as being a pro-state sponsored rape, pro more spending, pro big government conservative (Shame on everyone for not noticing this and only focusing on his anti-freedom, anti-choice, anti-woman views). His views, repeated many times over the years, though do make me wonder, is Seekster just allergic to pussy or does he just hate anyone with one?

Could we please ignore the crazy religious person and discuss the legislation itself, it's legal implications and how long it'll take before it gets struck down for being unconstitutional?

I think its cute you call me a pussy but then insult me personally without even quoting me so that I get a message in my inbox.

Seekster:

TheGuy(wantstobe):
Well it only took till halfway down the first page the first page before we had someone agreeing with this legislation (Seekster) and outing themselves as being a pro-state sponsored rape, pro more spending, pro big government conservative (Shame on everyone for not noticing this and only focusing on his anti-freedom, anti-choice, anti-woman views). His views, repeated many times over the years, though do make me wonder, is Seekster just allergic to pussy or does he just hate anyone with one?

Could we please ignore the crazy religious person and discuss the legislation itself, it's legal implications and how long it'll take before it gets struck down for being unconstitutional?

I think its cute you call me a pussy but then insult me personally without even quoting me so that I get a message in my inbox.

You appear to lack the basic reading comprehension skills necessary to even understand what I wrote Seekster. I posed a question asking whether you were either allergic to pussy or that you just hated those with them. Not actually calling you one. A child would understand what I wrote but you appear not to have. So if you do not wish to discuss the legislation, the legal ramifications of it or any court challenges to it that may arise please leave the thread.

TheGuy(wantstobe):

Seekster:

TheGuy(wantstobe):
Well it only took till halfway down the first page the first page before we had someone agreeing with this legislation (Seekster) and outing themselves as being a pro-state sponsored rape, pro more spending, pro big government conservative (Shame on everyone for not noticing this and only focusing on his anti-freedom, anti-choice, anti-woman views). His views, repeated many times over the years, though do make me wonder, is Seekster just allergic to pussy or does he just hate anyone with one?

Could we please ignore the crazy religious person and discuss the legislation itself, it's legal implications and how long it'll take before it gets struck down for being unconstitutional?

I think its cute you call me a pussy but then insult me personally without even quoting me so that I get a message in my inbox.

You appear to lack the basic reading comprehension skills necessary to even understand what I wrote Seekster. I posed a question asking whether you were either allergic to pussy or that you just hated those with them. Not actually calling you one. A child would understand what I wrote but you appear not to have. So if you do not wish to discuss the legislation, the legal ramifications of it or any court challenges to it that may arise please leave the thread.

Sorry have a lot open on my screen right now and misread it. Anyway I don't engage in personal attacks here so I wont be getting drawn into a pissing contest with you.

Seekster:
We take care of the old and disabled because its the right thing to do.

Morality has nothing to do with it. What's right and what's wrong are relative terms invented by humanity. We take care of the old and the disabled because we're empathethic creatures. Our morality is derived from that fact and not the other way around.

Seekster:
How on Earth does that prove that all life is not sacred?

I already explained why quite succintly in my reply to you and I don't feel the need to reiterate my argument again.

Seekster:
Like talking to a brick wall, are you going to just keep asking the question until you get an answer you can properly criticize? I already answered your question, its really not my fault you refuse to accept my answer.

And I pointed out to you that your answer contradicted your beliefs.

Seekster:
Why are you talking in absolutes? A few posts ago people were criticizing me because they thought I was talking in absolutes.

The other poster's arguments with you are not relevant to our discussion. The reason I'm talking in absolutes is because we're dealing with an idea based on moral absolutism.

PercyBoleyn:

Seekster:
We take care of the old and disabled because its the right thing to do.

Morality has nothing to do with it. What's right and what's wrong are relative terms invented by humanity. We take care of the old and the disabled because we're empathethic creatures. Our morality is derived from that fact and not the other way around.

Like I said, we do it because its the right thing to do (to us at least).

PercyBoleyn:

Seekster:
How on Earth does that prove that all life is not sacred?

I already explained why quite succintly in my reply to you and I don't feel the need to reiterate my argument again.

Then you can't argue that it proves that all life is not sacred. I read it didnt see any proof that didnt have flaws with it and there you go.

PercyBoleyn:

Seekster:
Like talking to a brick wall, are you going to just keep asking the question until you get an answer you can properly criticize? I already answered your question, its really not my fault you refuse to accept my answer.

And I pointed out to you that your answer contradicted your beliefs.

And I explained why it doesnt contradict my beliefs (I think I know my own beliefs better than you know my beliefs, maybe I'm just not explaining it very well).

PercyBoleyn:

Seekster:
Why are you talking in absolutes? A few posts ago people were criticizing me because they thought I was talking in absolutes.

The other poster's arguments with you are not relevant to our discussion. The reason I'm talking in absolutes is because we're dealing with an idea based on moral absolutism.

What do you mean based on moral absolutism? I already told you that something can be justified but still be immoral. Do you accept that or not?

Karma168:
This will get overturned fast as it is effectively state sponsored rape.

It certainly should. Whether or not it does is quite another matter, though I'm jealous of your optimism there.

Seekster:
Like I said, we do it because its the right thing to do (to us at least).

I think I finally understand why people find you so infuriating. I just explained to you how that argument is untrue and instead of addressing my points you choose to reiterate yours and ignore everything I said.

Seekster:
Then you can't argue that it proves that all life is not sacred. I read it didnt see any proof that didnt have flaws with it and there you go.

Then address the points I've made. They were quite numerous.

Seekster:
And I explained why it doesnt contradict my beliefs (I think I know my own beliefs better than you know my beliefs, maybe I'm just not explaining it very well).

No you didn't. You told me it doesn't contradict your beliefs but that's not the same as explaining.

Seekster:
What do you mean based on moral absolutism? I already told you that something can be justified but still be immoral. Do you accept that or not?

According to moral absolutism, an action is either right and therefore justifiable or wrong and therefore unjustifiable. These two are absolutes, if an action is wrong it can never be justified. "Life is sacred" is a moral absolute concept. You do the math.

PercyBoleyn:

Seekster:
Like I said, we do it because its the right thing to do (to us at least).

I think I finally understand why people find you so infuriating. I just explained to you how that argument is untrue and instead of addressing my points you choose to reiterate yours and ignore everything I said.

People find me infuriating because I enjoy being witting in my wording and sometimes that comes across the wrong way. For example, I just agreed with you.

"Morality has nothing to do with it. What's right and what's wrong are relative terms invented by humanity. We take care of the old and the disabled because we're empathethic creatures. Our morality is derived from that fact and not the other way around."

Yes, to US its the right thing to do. It has more to do with empathy than morality though it is part of morality because of our empathy.

PercyBoleyn:

Seekster:
Then you can't argue that it proves that all life is not sacred. I read it didnt see any proof that didnt have flaws with it and there you go.

Then address the points I've made. They were quite numerous.

Which points did you make that I didn't address, and I swear if you say all of them this conversation is over because I know I addressed quite few but its possible I overlooked a handful.

PercyBoleyn:

Seekster:
And I explained why it doesnt contradict my beliefs (I think I know my own beliefs better than you know my beliefs, maybe I'm just not explaining it very well).

No you didn't. You told me it doesn't contradict your beliefs but that's not the same as explaining.

I explained it, you just reject the idea that not all life is equally sacred though all life is sacred.

PercyBoleyn:

Seekster:
What do you mean based on moral absolutism? I already told you that something can be justified but still be immoral. Do you accept that or not?

According to moral absolutism, an action is either right and therefore justifiable or wrong and therefore unjustifiable. These two are absolutes, if an action is wrong it can never be justified. "Life is sacred" is a moral absolute concept. You do the math.

So breaking into someone's home and killing them can't be justified?

Seekster:
People find me infuriating because I enjoy being witting in my wording and sometimes that comes across the wrong way.

No, they don't. They really don't.

Seekster:
Which points did you make that I didn't address, and I swear if you say all of them this conversation is over because I know I addressed quite few but its possible I overlooked a handful.

What did you actually address? Your reply consisted of three sentences telling me I'm wrong without going into detail as to why.

Seekster:
So breaking into someone's home and killing them can't be justified?

Don't derail the discussion. One minute ago we were talking about the sacredness of life and now it's about justifying home invasion? Read my reply again and focus on the subject at hand please.

PercyBoleyn:

Seekster:
People find me infuriating because I enjoy being witting in my wording and sometimes that comes across the wrong way.

No, they don't. They really don't.

Seekster:
Which points did you make that I didn't address, and I swear if you say all of them this conversation is over because I know I addressed quite few but its possible I overlooked a handful.

What did you actually address? Your reply consisted of three sentences telling me I'm wrong without going into detail as to why.

Seekster:
So breaking into someone's home and killing them can't be justified?

Don't derail the discussion. One minute ago we were talking about the sacredness of life and now it's about justifying home invasion? Read my reply again and focus on the subject at hand please.

Ok I think this discussion was derailed a long time ago. I'm willing to start over and take it point by point if you are.

Take it to PMs if you're not going to discuss the actual topic, the actual legislation.

Seekster:
Ok I think this discussion was derailed a long time ago. I'm willing to start over and take it point by point if you are.

Very well, let's start simple.

"All life is sacred" is a moral absolute concept which entails that certain actions are right, meaning they're always morally justifiable, and wrong, meaning they're never morally justifiable. If you subscribe to the idea that all life is sacred then taking a life can never be justified from a moral point of view, even if not doing so would mean your own demise.

Since you believe that taking a life can be morally justifiable which directly contradicts this philosophy, a more appropiate wording would be "only intelligent life is sacred" since that would make more sense when taking into account your beliefs, mainly that human life is more important than animal life. Do you agree?

TheGuy(wantstobe):
Take it to PMs if you're not going to discuss the actual topic, the actual legislation.

Seekster's belief that all life is sacred is at the core of his disagreement with abortion. That makes this discussion quite relevant and not at all off topic.

TheGuy(wantstobe):
Take it to PMs if you're not going to discuss the actual topic, the actual legislation.

I could be wrong but I think we all agreed that this legislation probably is going to get torn apart in court even if it passes.

PercyBoleyn:

Seekster:
Ok I think this discussion was derailed a long time ago. I'm willing to start over and take it point by point if you are.

Very well, let's start simple.

"All life is sacred" is a moral absolute concept which entails that certain actions are right, meaning they're always morally justifiable, and wrong, meaning they're never morally justifiable. If you subscribe to the idea that all life is sacred then taking a life can never be justified from a moral point of view, even if not doing so would mean your own demise.

Since you believe that taking a life can be morally justifiable which directly contradicts this philosophy, a more appropiate wording would be "only intelligent life is sacred" since that would make more sense when taking into account your beliefs, mainly that human life is more important than animal life. Do you agree?

TheGuy(wantstobe):
Take it to PMs if you're not going to discuss the actual topic, the actual legislation.

Seekster's belief that all life is sacred is at the core of his disagreement with abortion. That makes this discussion quite relevant and not at all off topic.

I never said "morally justifiable" I just said "justifiable" and I was careful to phrase it that way.

Its immoral to break into someone's house and kill them, in Bin Laden's case it was justifiable even if technically it was immoral.

Seekster:
I never said "morally justifiable" I just said "justifiable" and I was careful to phrase it that way.

Its immoral to break into someone's house and kill them, in Bin Laden's case it was justifiable even if technically it was immoral.

Let me make it very clear. Under moral absolutism, if an action is considered wrong or immoral then it is NEVER justifiable. If a guy came into your house, fucked your wife, killed your dog, ate your dinner, pissed on your lawn and set fire to your house, if you subscribe to the idea that all life is sacred which is based on moral absolutism, killing that person is not, under any circumstances, justifiable.

Now that we've cleared that up you'll hopefully answer my question. I'll quote it in case you're lazy:
"Since you believe that taking a life can be morally justifiable which directly contradicts this philosophy, a more appropiate wording would be "only intelligent life is sacred" since that would make more sense when taking into account your beliefs, mainly that human life is more important than animal life. Do you agree?"

PercyBoleyn:

Seekster:
I never said "morally justifiable" I just said "justifiable" and I was careful to phrase it that way.

Its immoral to break into someone's house and kill them, in Bin Laden's case it was justifiable even if technically it was immoral.

Let me make it very clear. Under moral absolutism, if an action is considered wrong or immoral then it is NEVER justifiable. If a guy came into your house, fucked your wife, killed your dog, ate your dinner, pissed on your lawn and set fire to your house, if you subscribe to the idea that all life is sacred which is based on moral absolutism, killing that person is not, under any circumstances, justifiable.

Now that we've cleared that up you'll hopefully answer my question. I'll quote it in case you're lazy:
"Since you believe that taking a life can be morally justifiable which directly contradicts this philosophy, a more appropiate wording would be "only intelligent life is sacred" since that would make more sense when taking into account your beliefs, mainly that human life is more important than animal life. Do you agree?"

No hang on we havnt cleared that up.

"Under moral absolutism, if an action is considered wrong or immoral then it is NEVER justifiable."

On what basis do you say this? Remember I never said "morally justifiable".

Seekster:

PercyBoleyn:

Seekster:
I never said "morally justifiable" I just said "justifiable" and I was careful to phrase it that way.

Its immoral to break into someone's house and kill them, in Bin Laden's case it was justifiable even if technically it was immoral.

Let me make it very clear. Under moral absolutism, if an action is considered wrong or immoral then it is NEVER justifiable. If a guy came into your house, fucked your wife, killed your dog, ate your dinner, pissed on your lawn and set fire to your house, if you subscribe to the idea that all life is sacred which is based on moral absolutism, killing that person is not, under any circumstances, justifiable.

Now that we've cleared that up you'll hopefully answer my question. I'll quote it in case you're lazy:
"Since you believe that taking a life can be morally justifiable which directly contradicts this philosophy, a more appropiate wording would be "only intelligent life is sacred" since that would make more sense when taking into account your beliefs, mainly that human life is more important than animal life. Do you agree?"

No hang on we havnt cleared that up.

"Under moral absolutism, if an action is considered wrong or immoral then it is NEVER justifiable."

On what basis do you say this? Remember I never said "morally justifiable".

It is an odd idea of morality that allows that sometimes a good thing to do-- something that ought be (or have been) done-- can be immoral. If it's immoral, you shouldn't do it. No?

Seekster:

Look in the solar system, how many worlds other than Earth support life (possibly a handful but as far as we know right now none)? How many support intelligent life (hopefully just Earth)? Now expand both questions to the galaxy or even the universe. Even IF life is as prevalent in the Universe as the most optimistic estimates predict, its still the exception and not the rule and so life should be treated with at least some degree of reverence, not savagely violated and then tossed in the garbage.

You mean like what nature has been doing for millions upon millions of years?

Seekster:

Nobody has refuted my points (trying is nice but nobody has succeeded).

You've yet to make a single point that is valid to begin with. Trying is nice but you've not succeeded.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked