toldailytopic: Were you for or against your mother's right to terminate you?

[Aimiel]

As far as being frustrated that other countries sell them, sure, but being that i am no diplomat or leader of those countries, there really isnt much i can personally do about that is there?

They sell babies into slavery from this country. My aunt owned a 50-unit apartment building where they staged pregnant prostitutes before shipping their babies overseas, and cooperated with police on getting the baby-ring shut down. The US is the number two nation in the world for purchasing or selling humans into slavery. Obama has done next-to-nothing about stopping it.

 

[Angel4Truth]

They sell babies into slavery from this country. My aunt owned a 50-unit apartment building where they staged pregnant prostitutes before shipping their babies overseas, and cooperated with police on getting the baby-ring shut down. The US is the number two nation in the world for purchasing or selling humans into slavery. Obama has done next-to-nothing about stopping it.

I don't doubt that either.

2 Timothy 3:

3 But know this, that in the last days perilous times will come:
2 For men will be lovers of themselves, lovers of money, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy,
3 unloving, unforgiving, slanderers, without self-control, brutal, despisers of good,
4 traitors, headstrong, haughty, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God,
5 having a form of godliness but denying its power. And from such people turn away!
6 For of this sort are those who creep into households and make captives of gullible women loaded down with sins, led away by various lusts,
7 always learning and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth.
8 Now as Jannes and Jambres resisted Moses, so do these also resist the truth: men of corrupt minds, disapproved concerning the faith;
9 but they will progress no further, for their folly will be manifest to all, as theirs also was.

 

[doloresistere]

Oh well. Here goes.

A4T was suggesting that it was a moral position to starve yourself before a child could starve. Agreed for most situations. But, where your death would kill the child (and siblings who can no longer be supported), it can be moral to allow that one child to die, and immoral to allow yourself to starve to death.

It wasn't really a difficult explanation. 'Pick the choice that does the least harm to others' can be a moral decision. (Caveats obviously apply, before you find exceptions)

No wonder nobody could understand you. The reasoning is ridiculous. Her death would not necessarily kill the child and the siblings. Allowing one of the children to starve does not make it so the other children can live. The whole idea is that for any one particular meal, it is always best to let the children eat first even if it means you go hungry. If you think you will starve to death, ask for help or give your children away.

 

[Aimiel]

I don't doubt that either.

EDIT: SORRY... you DO NOT doubt... I read it too fast. =)





You doubt what? ... that my aunt had a slavery ring operating in her apartment building? ... that the USA is number two in the world in the slave market?

27,000,000 slaves in the USA today?!?

http://tribune.com.pk/story/396406/up-to-27-million-people-living-in-slavery-us/

 

[gcthomas]

What sort of argument is this?

People in some countries are poor therefore everyone should be allowed to murder their children?

What sort of argument is it? Not one of mine - this is a poor caricature of my statements.

Can the evolutionists please come up with something not so utterly despicable?

Stripe enters, dumps a steaming, inane comment to the effect that EVERYTHING is to do with evolution, then leaves, self-satisfied that he has moved the argument on.

Well done, Stripe.

 

[gcthomas]

No wonder nobody could understand you. The reasoning is ridiculous. Her death would not necessarily kill the child and the siblings. Allowing one of the children to starve does not make it so the other children can live. The whole idea is that for any one particular meal, it is always best to let the children eat first even if it means you go hungry. If you think you will starve to death, ask for help or give your children away.

Did you read the thread? I was referring to a specific situation, of a stone age-type tribe buried deep in resource poor, isolated regions of Papua New Guinea. Are you actually aware of the situation I was discussing, or responding on autopilot?

 

[Stripe]

What sort of argument is it? Not one of mine - this is a poor caricature of my statements.

We can easily look back to compare what you said with my assessment:

If a productive mother living in extremely marginal conditions starved, then the child would probably die anyway from getting no milk. Distasteful to someone in a rich country perhaps, but ethics are context sensitive.

Your argument for a mother's right to murder her child is based upon the fact that some people in other countries are poor.

It's a despicable position to hold.

Stripe enters, dumps a steaming, inane comment to the effect that EVERYTHING is to do with evolution, then leaves, self-satisfied that he has moved the argument on.Well done, Stripe.

Well, no. I just notice that all the pro-abortion types are also hard-core evolutionists. I think you'll go a long way before you find an exception to that generalisation.

But feel free to keep wailing about trivial matters instead of addressing your serious moral failings.

 

[Angel4Truth]

What sort of argument is it? Not one of mine - this is a poor caricature of my statements.



Stripe enters, dumps a steaming, inane comment to the effect that EVERYTHING is to do with evolution, then leaves, self-satisfied that he has moved the argument on.

Well done, Stripe.

I agree, well done Stripe, you entered and showed the steaming dump of an inane comment that gcthomas there made about it being ok to kill, i mean hey - why not believe that steaming pile if one believes we are no different than any other animal, suvival of the fittest you know, so in their thinking i guess the weakest should be the one who starves and dies, and sadly they see nothing wrong with that kind of thinking.

 

[gcthomas]

We can easily look back to compare what you said with my assessment:
Your argument for a mother's right to murder her child is based upon the fact that some people in other countries are poor.

It's a despicable position to hold.

Well, no. I just notice that all the pro-abortion types are also hard-core evolutionists. I think you'll go a long way before you find an exception to that generalisation.

But feel free to keep wailing about trivial matters instead of addressing your serious moral failings.

I presented a simple case, that you still do not understand. You change it in your mind to a simplistic case and criticise that. If you wish to actually understand, which I doubt, then look up the history and anthropology of infanticide. The issues For different cultures are subtle and difficult. But you are not one for nuance and subtlety, preferring the simplistic approach of black and white to make moralising easier and requiring a shallower analysis.

 

[Stripe]

Evolutionists: It's simple, we want to kill unborn children in a subtle and nuanced manner.

 

[gcthomas]

Evolutionists: It's simple, we want to kill unborn children in a subtle and nuanced manner.

Nuance needs intelligence and rationality. Bigots need just to repeat the mantra: "Evolution - bad. Everything I already disagree with must be evolution."

Cogito ergo sum.
​

Without the cogito, can you sum?

 

[Frank Ernest]

Nuance needs intelligence and rationality. Bigots need just to repeat the mantra: "Evolution - bad. Everything I already disagree with must be evolution."

All "nuance" needs is some pseudointellectual who can pronounce the word, or type it, as the case may be.

Cogito ergo sum.
​

Without the cogito, can you sum?

Yes. One must "sum" before one can "cogito."

 

[Angel4Truth]

Evolutionists: It's simple, we want to kill unborn children in a subtle and nuanced manner.

Why not have them just eat them like other animals do, since they believe thats all they are - remember everything in nature that happens is ok and animals eat their young sometimes.

 

[gcthomas]

Why not have them just eat them like other animals do, since they believe thats all they are - remember everything in nature that happens is ok and animals eat their young sometimes.

I'm surprised that you are happy to show off such a childlike lack of understanding of the basis of universal morals and humanist ideals.

You would do much better in your attacks if you understood your 'enemies'.

:idea:

 

[Angel4Truth]

I'm surprised that you are happy to show off such a childlike lack of understanding of the basis of universal morals and humanist ideals.

You would do much better in your attacks if you understood your 'enemies'.

:idea:

You cant be both moral and animalistic, make up your mind.

You want to tout "homosexual animals" proving gay is ok, yet think its childlike to suggest to you liberals to just eat your young if you dont want them instead of aborting them, because hey, everything in nature is ok.

Your avatar type also eats its young sometimes, so why not you since its only a natural action? There is no room for morality in evolution.

 

[gcthomas]

You cant be both moral and animalistic, make up your mind.

You just made that up. I saif no such thing. Silly A4T.

You want to tout "homosexual animals" proving gay is ok, yet think its childlike to suggest to you liberals to just eat your young if you dont want them instead of aborting them, because hey, everything in nature is ok.

No, I didn't say that either. Setting up a straw man is OK, but be honest when you have just fabricated the argument, or you will look like your own moral compass is out of kilter.

Your avatar type also eats its young sometimes, so why not you since its only a natural action? There is no room for morality in evolution.

You are crazy if you think that anyone believes that. As I said before, you should have some knowledge of what you are discussing before you criticise or you will look silly. Silly A4T.

 

[Stripe]

Nuance needs intelligence and rationality. Bigots need just to repeat the mantra: "Evolution - bad. Everything I already disagree with must be evolution."

Cogito ergo sum. ​

Without the cogito, can you sum?

What are you on about? :dizzy:

You support the idea that mothers should be able to murder their unborn children. You defend this position by telling us that there are poor people in other countries.

Your position is despicable and your attempts to avoid facing up to what you believe are pathetic.

 

[gcthomas]

What are you on about? :dizzy:

You support the idea that mothers should be able to murder their unborn children. You defend this position by telling us that there are poor people in other countries.

Your position is despicable and your attempts to avoid facing up to what you believe are pathetic.

Heh, heh. Get a grip of the discussion, Stripe!

I was challenging the idea that there can be no moral reason for an abortion, not supporting murder.

And, as you know, I don't consider aborting a small cell bundle as murder as it is not yet a person.

I know having two strands to a discussion confuses you Stripe, but do try!

 

[Lighthouse]

Heh, heh. Get a grip of the discussion, Stripe!

I was challenging the idea that there can be no moral reason for an abortion, not supporting murder.

And, as you know, I don't consider aborting a small cell bundle as murder as it is not yet a person.

I know having two strands to a discussion confuses you Stripe, but do try!

And apparently having two strands of unique DNA confuses you.

 

[gcthomas]

And apparently having two strands of unique DNA confuses you.

It DOES confuse me that you seem to have picked 'unique DNA' as the test of when a foetus gets full human rights simply because it is easy to determine, instead of a reasoned judgement, yet you seem to think the judgement is obviously correct. The bible doesn't mention DNA or even hint at its existence. How has the DNA argument got such a hold on you?

Feeling your judgement is 'obvious' means that you don't have to think at all or consider the arguments. It makes your life simple and black and white, with no awkward moral judgements to make and no difficult issues to resolve. If that is the limit of your cognitive abilities, then you are welcome to that.