User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 2/24/2014 5:56:19 AM EDT
[#1]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I didn't say we each have our own moral authority. We all have the authority to judge others. Doesn't mean we are correct. Doesn't mean they are wrong. I view morals like health. Everyone has an opinion about what is healthy and what isn't. Often what is healthy does depend on what you value (being able to run far but having joint problems down the road, or being less in shape but not having joint impact problems, etc). That doesn't mean some things aren't objectively healthy and objectively unhealthy. Even the healthiest and smartest person in the world can do something unhealthy, and even the fattest slob out there can call them on it. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
If we each have our own moral authority, why would you possibly overstep your bounds like this and advocate making abortion illegal? The writers of the article linked in the OP are simply exercising the moral authority that you have clearly recognized. What makes your morals superior to their morals such that we should make a decision that limits their moral authority? I view morals like health. Everyone has an opinion about what is healthy and what isn't. Often what is healthy does depend on what you value (being able to run far but having joint problems down the road, or being less in shape but not having joint impact problems, etc). That doesn't mean some things aren't objectively healthy and objectively unhealthy. Even the healthiest and smartest person in the world can do something unhealthy, and even the fattest slob out there can call them on it. OK, sorry I misunderstood what you were saying. So if we have the authority to judge others and do not ourselves have our own moral authority, what moral authority would you use as the standard by which to judge? To use your comparison, how would you know if someone's behavior is "objectively unhealthy" or "objectively healthy" without an objective standard? |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/24/2014 5:57:22 AM EDT
[#2]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
This is a good thought experiment & and one I've used when debating someone who is pro-abortion. The reaction is usually a deer in the headlight look. Quote HistoryQuoted:
This is a good thought experiment & and one I've used when debating someone who is pro-abortion. The reaction is usually a deer in the headlight look. . But it isn’t pro-lifers who should worry about the Giubilini-Minerva proposal. It’s pro-choicers. The case for "after-birth abortion” draws a logical path from common pro-choice assumptions to infanticide. It challenges us, implicitly and explicitly, to explain why, if abortion is permissible, infanticide isn’t. The concept really isn't new either. It is basically a re-writing of "A Modest Proposal." |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/24/2014 5:57:53 AM EDT
[#3]
Sylvan is on a roll.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/24/2014 5:58:38 AM EDT
[#4]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Sylvan is on a roll. Tomislav ain't far behind.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/24/2014 5:58:39 AM EDT
[#5]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
you aren't a true libertarian while you lecture women on what they can do with their bodies OR their offspring. Keep your laws off my body! Sub-Humans, whether pre or post natal, do not have individual rights. and we will let judges and liberal academics, who are best suited to make these hard choices, determine what is, and is not, sub-human. this is logic and reason, the only gods I will kneel before. check your privilege.  Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
As a libertarian, I've made the point many times that people who are pro abortion on the basis of MYOB have no business calling themselves libertarians. The heart of libertarianism is the protecting of individual rights - the debate on abortion needs to center on when people are granted those rights, not what is politically, or personally convenient. you aren't a true libertarian while you lecture women on what they can do with their bodies OR their offspring. Keep your laws off my body! Sub-Humans, whether pre or post natal, do not have individual rights. and we will let judges and liberal academics, who are best suited to make these hard choices, determine what is, and is not, sub-human. this is logic and reason, the only gods I will kneel before. check your privilege. Are you trolling?The law treated Blacks as sub-humans in times past. Our Constitution upheld this for quite some time. Where do you draw the line? 5 years old? Or if your precious judges and academics determined that anyone prepubescent was not quite human, would you be so bold in signing off on their deaths. As death carries with it the ultimate coercive measure, shouldn't the default position be to preserve life until conclusive evidence provides reason to think otherwise? Libertarianism isn't a death-cult. And my brand of it doesn't value the lives of convicted murderers more than the unborn. Your arguments are regurgitated nonsense. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/24/2014 5:59:38 AM EDT
[#6]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
................ Are you trolling?The law treated Blacks as sub-humans in times past. Our Constitution upheld this for quite some time. Where do you draw the line? 5 years old? Or if your precious judges and academics determined that anyone prepubescent was not quite human, would you be so bold in signing off on their deaths. As death carries with it the ultimate coercive measure, shouldn't the default position be to preserve life until conclusive evidence provides reason to think otherwise? Libertarianism isn't a death-cult. And my brand of it doesn't value the lives of convicted murderers more than the unborn. Your arguments are regurgitated nonsense. He IS being SARCASTIC!! |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/24/2014 6:00:24 AM EDT
[#7]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
you aren't a true libertarian while you lecture women on what they can do with their bodies OR their offspring. Keep your laws off my body! Sub-Humans, whether pre or post natal, do not have individual rights. and we will let judges and liberal academics, who are best suited to make these hard choices, determine what is, and is not, sub-human. this is logic and reason, the only gods I will kneel before. check your privilege. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
As a libertarian, I've made the point many times that people who are pro abortion on the basis of MYOB have no business calling themselves libertarians. The heart of libertarianism is the protecting of individual rights - the debate on abortion needs to center on when people are granted those rights, not what is politically, or personally convenient. you aren't a true libertarian while you lecture women on what they can do with their bodies OR their offspring. Keep your laws off my body! Sub-Humans, whether pre or post natal, do not have individual rights. and we will let judges and liberal academics, who are best suited to make these hard choices, determine what is, and is not, sub-human. this is logic and reason, the only gods I will kneel before. check your privilege. Sub-humans.......That exact term was what the nazis used to refer to the jews and slavs. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/24/2014 6:00:25 AM EDT
[#8]
It WOULD be a clever argument, it it wasn't filled with fallacies and based on incorrect or mis-stated assumptions about the pro-choice position.
So it's a logic that "defeats" an argument that doesn't actually exist. Wow. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/24/2014 6:00:28 AM EDT
[#9]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
He IS being SARCASTIC!! Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
................ Are you trolling?The law treated Blacks as sub-humans in times past. Our Constitution upheld this for quite some time. Where do you draw the line? 5 years old? Or if your precious judges and academics determined that anyone prepubescent was not quite human, would you be so bold in signing off on their deaths. As death carries with it the ultimate coercive measure, shouldn't the default position be to preserve life until conclusive evidence provides reason to think otherwise? Libertarianism isn't a death-cult. And my brand of it doesn't value the lives of convicted murderers more than the unborn. Your arguments are regurgitated nonsense. He IS being SARCASTIC!! I see it now. =) But my point stands. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/24/2014 6:00:57 AM EDT
[#10]
Parents should have the right to knock off their kids at any point in time prior to their 21 birthday
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/24/2014 6:02:09 AM EDT
[#11]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Well this one is true. Especially if you think that the morning after form of birth control is the same as infanticide. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Morally there's no difference. Doing it before delivery simply provides a pretext for dehumanizing the victim. This. making us lose elections. 
Especially if you think that the morning after form of birth control is the same as infanticide.  when did that happen? In the last abortion thread it was the prochoicers arguing that.
For somebody who always interjects himself in the religion threads pretending to be the Big Bang and evolution'a gift to science and logic you sure do show your ass often. But please, use all the Party-approved "science" you need to hang your straw men. You're "that guy" who will shit all over threads that challenge your party's global warming, abortion, and other religious beliefs. "Humans aren't people" "Cooling is proof of warming" "Warming is proof of warming" "No proof of god so couldn't possibly exist..." "Look how many stars...aliens. " Religion. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/24/2014 6:02:34 AM EDT
[#12]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
He IS being SARCASTIC!! Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
................ Are you trolling?The law treated Blacks as sub-humans in times past. Our Constitution upheld this for quite some time. Where do you draw the line? 5 years old? Or if your precious judges and academics determined that anyone prepubescent was not quite human, would you be so bold in signing off on their deaths. As death carries with it the ultimate coercive measure, shouldn't the default position be to preserve life until conclusive evidence provides reason to think otherwise? Libertarianism isn't a death-cult. And my brand of it doesn't value the lives of convicted murderers more than the unborn. Your arguments are regurgitated nonsense. He IS being SARCASTIC!! Took me a while, but I eventually realized they had to be trolling. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/24/2014 6:03:05 AM EDT
[#13]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
It WOULD be a clever argument, it it wasn't filled with fallacies and based on incorrect or mis-stated assumptions about the pro-choice position. So it's a logic that "defeats" an argument that doesn't actually exist. Wow. What are they? It has always seemed pretty straight-forward. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/24/2014 6:04:17 AM EDT
[#14]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Language is a powerful thing...which is why corruption of it has a high priority for those who want to gain power. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
oh and another thing - it's hilarious that people call it a baby when it's wanted and a fetus when it's not. ask a woman how her fetus is doing, what the sex of her fetus is, when is the fetus due, etc and you'll probably get slapped. but if she decided she didn't want it, it'd be perfectly OK. it's pretty fucked up that the mother gets to decide what "it" is referred to. Language is a powerful thing...which is why corruption of it has a high priority for those who want to gain power. Reference "colonial heterocage" above. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/24/2014 6:05:13 AM EDT
[#15]
This is Sparta!
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/24/2014 6:05:24 AM EDT
[#16]
Quote HistoryQuoted: AR15.com members openly supporting killing Mexicans? I doubt it. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: And people wonder how they found people to herd Jews into the gas chamber and pull the lever. There are plenty of people who are completely fine with this way of thinking. Yup. There are no shortage of people who will kill you for convenience. AR15.com members openly supporting killing Mexicans? I doubt it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/24/2014 6:07:18 AM EDT
[#17]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
.................. I see it now. =) But my point stands. Oh, I think the VAST majority of Americans wouldn't go for the lunatic in the OP's article. Are there any states who still allow late term abortions? |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/24/2014 6:07:51 AM EDT
[#18]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Parents should have the right to knock off their kids at any point in time prior to their 21 birthday IIRC at one point that was actually Roman law. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/24/2014 6:09:11 AM EDT
[#19]
Quote HistoryQuoted: OK, sorry I misunderstood what you were saying. So if we have the authority to judge others and do not ourselves have our own moral authority, what moral authority would you use as the standard by which to judge? To use your comparison, how would you know if someone's behavior is "objectively unhealthy" or "objectively healthy" without an objective standard? Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: If we each have our own moral authority, why would you possibly overstep your bounds like this and advocate making abortion illegal? The writers of the article linked in the OP are simply exercising the moral authority that you have clearly recognized. What makes your morals superior to their morals such that we should make a decision that limits their moral authority? I view morals like health. Everyone has an opinion about what is healthy and what isn't. Often what is healthy does depend on what you value (being able to run far but having joint problems down the road, or being less in shape but not having joint impact problems, etc). That doesn't mean some things aren't objectively healthy and objectively unhealthy. Even the healthiest and smartest person in the world can do something unhealthy, and even the fattest slob out there can call them on it. OK, sorry I misunderstood what you were saying. So if we have the authority to judge others and do not ourselves have our own moral authority, what moral authority would you use as the standard by which to judge? To use your comparison, how would you know if someone's behavior is "objectively unhealthy" or "objectively healthy" without an objective standard? We don't have all the answers when it comes to health now, even if we want to pretend we do. We don't have all the answers when it comes to morality now, even if we want to pretend we do. That doesn't mean all opinions are equal. That doesn't mean overall moral people can't have an immoral belief. Same with any alleged god. If allah existed and was the one true god we can jude his morality and the morality of his followers in the same way we can if allah doesn't exist. Same goes for Yahweh, and any other god you wish. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/24/2014 6:09:33 AM EDT
[#20]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Except for the fact that, you know, rape is only cited in 1% or less of all abortions. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
The Christian Taliban loves calling post-natal fetuses 'babies'. It's their way of trying to trick the poor womyn (who was probably raped) into keeping the thing. Except for the fact that, you know, rape is only cited in 1% or less of all abortions. Stare-rape. The patriarchy always forgets about stare-rape. (ETA: And yes, I am being sarcastic. )
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/24/2014 6:09:40 AM EDT
[#21]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
This. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Morally there's no difference. Doing it before delivery simply provides a pretext for dehumanizing the victim. This. Murdering a child is murder. Timing has nothing to do with it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/24/2014 6:10:40 AM EDT
[#22]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Stare-rape. The patriarchy always forgets about stare-rape. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
The Christian Taliban loves calling post-natal fetuses 'babies'. It's their way of trying to trick the poor womyn (who was probably raped) into keeping the thing. Except for the fact that, you know, rape is only cited in 1% or less of all abortions. Stare-rape. The patriarchy always forgets about stare-rape.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/24/2014 6:11:00 AM EDT
[#23]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Now that your reflexive response to seeing scripture is out of the way, do you have anything to say to my point that these particular scriptures--whether you believe the Bible or not--portray a world that is not at all different from the one that now sees the open advocacy for the killing of newborns? My apologies if I missed sarcasm. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Morally there's no difference. Doing it before delivery simply provides a pretext for dehumanizing the victim. For those who say the Bible is a dusty old book that has no bearing on us today because we live in a totally different world: Isaiah 5:3 Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for light and light for darkness, who put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter! Psalm 106:37-39 They even sacrificed their sons And their daughters to demons, And shed innocent blood, The blood of their sons and daughters, Whom they sacrificed to the idols of Canaan; And the land was polluted with blood. Oh brother, quotes from the bible. Don't forget what Obi Wan Kanobi said, "Beware of the Dark Side, it is strong!" Now that your reflexive response to seeing scripture is out of the way, do you have anything to say to my point that these particular scriptures--whether you believe the Bible or not--portray a world that is not at all different from the one that now sees the open advocacy for the killing of newborns? My apologies if I missed sarcasm. Those same verses have been used to protest each of our past wars. You're seeing what you want to see. ETA: phone doesn't know how to grammar. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/24/2014 6:11:41 AM EDT
[#24]
Quote HistorySNIP
Haven't read many threads on the topic of border security have you? Quote HistorySNIP
AR15.com members openly supporting killing Mexicans? I doubt it. No, but even if that were advocated, a reasonable person can make the distinction between innocent and guilty. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/24/2014 6:13:34 AM EDT
[#25]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Bonus points awarded for mastering the language of the debate. I'd like to see an Epic Rap Battle between Sylvan and Rusted Ace. Most halal!!! Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
So who are you to determine what is, and is not, murder as opposed to justifiable homicide. How are you doing it? just your typical white male shoving everyone into a colonial heterocage. Bonus points awarded for mastering the language of the debate. I'd like to see an Epic Rap Battle between Sylvan and Rusted Ace. Most halal!!! 
Do you have a newsletter?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/24/2014 6:14:08 AM EDT
[#26]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
IIRC at one point that was actually Roman law. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Parents should have the right to knock off their kids at any point in time prior to their 21 birthday IIRC at one point that was actually Roman law. It's until their 26th birthday now. Law of the land and all that |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/24/2014 6:14:41 AM EDT
[#27]
IIRC in one or more of the American colonies, a parent could go to the governing authorities, declare his child incorRigoberto, and have the child hanged.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/24/2014 6:15:35 AM EDT
[#28]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Do you have a newsletter? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
So who are you to determine what is, and is not, murder as opposed to justifiable homicide. How are you doing it? just your typical white male shoving everyone into a colonial heterocage. Bonus points awarded for mastering the language of the debate. I'd like to see an Epic Rap Battle between Sylvan and Rusted Ace. Most halal!!!
Do you have a newsletter? Oh, now THAT would be a GOOD one!! 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/24/2014 6:15:37 AM EDT
[#29]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
And people wonder how they found people to herd Jews into the gas chamber and pull the lever. There are plenty of people who are completely fine with this way of thinking. That was a long time ago. We humans are too enlightened now, for that to happen. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/24/2014 6:18:47 AM EDT
[#30]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Haven't read many threads on the topic of border security have you? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
And people wonder how they found people to herd Jews into the gas chamber and pull the lever. There are plenty of people who are completely fine with this way of thinking. Yup. There are no shortage of people who will kill you for convenience. AR15.com members openly supporting killing Mexicans? I doubt it. Then you should report it to the mods. Killing people is against the law and a COC violation. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/24/2014 6:19:30 AM EDT
[#31]
Hilary 2016!
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/24/2014 6:21:25 AM EDT
[#32]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Parents should have the right to knock off their kids at any point in time prior to their 21 53rd birthday |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/24/2014 6:21:40 AM EDT
[#33]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Then you should report it to the mods. Killing people is against the law and a COC violation. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: AR15.com members openly supporting killing Mexicans? I doubt it. Then you should report it to the mods. Killing people is against the law and a COC violation. I've seen it multiple times. If you demonize people enough, there are people out there who buy into it and can literally justify anything. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/24/2014 6:22:57 AM EDT
[#34]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Yes, they would. And they would do so to you and me, if we become an inconvenience for them. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
It's actually kind of nice. They're doing exactly what I do in pro-life apologetics, but in reverse. Same point, though--passage through the birth canal doesn't change a human being's intrinsic value. Basically, "Would you do this to a born human, like a 2-year-old girl?" Yes, they would. And they would do so to you and me, if we become an inconvenience for them. It's already on record by one of Zero's close advisors that abortion should be an option up to age five. Because after all, before five or six a child really has not been socialized and there is no real social value to them because there's been no social investment in them. I think there should be no age limit on aborting politicians and political/social theorists who come up with such BS. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/24/2014 6:23:42 AM EDT
[#35]
My, my, aren't they aloof and intellectual . . . . .
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/24/2014 6:24:22 AM EDT
[#36]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
You're asking for when we define the beginning of human life...and that's a sticky question most pro-choicers would desperately like to avoid. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
it does cause the question to be asked - what is the difference between a 9 month abortion and a baby? and 8 month and a baby? a 7th month and a baby? where do you draw the line? because honestly - "it's still in the womb" is a shitty as answer. pre-mature babies can survive being born months before their estimated birth, yet it's still OK to kill others that same age because they're still up there? stupid if you ask me. You're asking for when we define the beginning of human life...and that's a sticky question most pro-choicers would desperately like to avoid. Like when a pregnant woman is murdered and her murderer is charged with her and the baby's deaths? Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/24/2014 6:24:50 AM EDT
[#37]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Except for the fact that, you know, rape is only cited in 1% or less of all abortions. all sex is rape. see also; heterocage |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/24/2014 6:25:06 AM EDT
[#38]
Sounds like a good idea.
A lot of recent research indicates that some children are simply "born psychopaths" and stand a very high chance of becoming violent criminals as adults. I would have no problem with putting down obvious psychos like Adam Lanza, the Carr brothers, etc. post birth. Given the huge number of crack babies, babies born with fetal alcohol syndrome, etc. there should be the option to terminate them if they can reliably be identified as likely to become violent predators as adults. There is precedent for infanticide. Under Roman law, a father had until a child's first birthday to end its life, no questions asked. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/24/2014 6:26:27 AM EDT
[#39]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Sounds like a good idea. A lot of recent research indicates that some children are simply "born psychopaths" and stand a very high chance of becoming violent criminals as adults. I would have no problem with putting down obvious psychos like Adam Lanza, the Carr brothers, etc. post birth. Given the huge number of crack babies, babies born with fetal alcohol syndrome, etc. there should be the option to terminate them if they can reliably be identified as likely to become violent predators as adults. There is precedent for infanticide. Under Roman law, a father had until a child's first birthday to end its life, no questions asked.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/24/2014 6:31:15 AM EDT
[#40]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
We try to figure it out based on our experience, understanding, and reason. We don't have all the answers when it comes to health now, even if we want to pretend we do. We don't have all the answers when it comes to morality now, even if we want to pretend we do. That doesn't mean all opinions are equal. That doesn't mean overall moral people can't have an immoral belief. Same with any alleged god. If allah existed and was the one true god we can jude his morality and the morality of his followers in the same way we can if allah doesn't exist. Same goes for Yahweh, and any other god you wish. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
If we each have our own moral authority, why would you possibly overstep your bounds like this and advocate making abortion illegal? The writers of the article linked in the OP are simply exercising the moral authority that you have clearly recognized. What makes your morals superior to their morals such that we should make a decision that limits their moral authority? I view morals like health. Everyone has an opinion about what is healthy and what isn't. Often what is healthy does depend on what you value (being able to run far but having joint problems down the road, or being less in shape but not having joint impact problems, etc). That doesn't mean some things aren't objectively healthy and objectively unhealthy. Even the healthiest and smartest person in the world can do something unhealthy, and even the fattest slob out there can call them on it. OK, sorry I misunderstood what you were saying. So if we have the authority to judge others and do not ourselves have our own moral authority, what moral authority would you use as the standard by which to judge? To use your comparison, how would you know if someone's behavior is "objectively unhealthy" or "objectively healthy" without an objective standard? We don't have all the answers when it comes to health now, even if we want to pretend we do. We don't have all the answers when it comes to morality now, even if we want to pretend we do. That doesn't mean all opinions are equal. That doesn't mean overall moral people can't have an immoral belief. Same with any alleged god. If allah existed and was the one true god we can jude his morality and the morality of his followers in the same way we can if allah doesn't exist. Same goes for Yahweh, and any other god you wish. So do we then only know what's right and what's wrong by consensus? |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/24/2014 6:32:30 AM EDT
[#41]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Obama voted yes on this 3 times when he was a state senator. You can find quite a few advocates for this. Iirc, the head, or former head, of Planned Parenthood was okay with this. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/24/2014 6:33:01 AM EDT
[#42]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Sounds like a good idea. A lot of recent research indicates that some children are simply "born psychopaths" and stand a very high chance of becoming violent criminals as adults. I would have no problem with putting down obvious psychos like Adam Lanza, the Carr brothers, etc. post birth. Given the huge number of crack babies, babies born with fetal alcohol syndrome, etc. there should be the option to terminate them if they can reliably be identified as likely to become violent predators as adults. There is precedent for infanticide. Under Roman law, a father had until a child's first birthday to end its life, no questions asked. No, it's true. The father had the right to kill by exposure any newborn they didn't want. And the pater familias was obligated to do so with deformed children. All quite legal. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/24/2014 6:33:33 AM EDT
[#43]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
It WOULD be a clever argument, it it wasn't filled with fallacies and based on incorrect or mis-stated assumptions about the pro-choice position. So it's a logic that "defeats" an argument that doesn't actually exist. Wow. Which are? ETA: 1. The moral significance of fetal development is arbitrary. 2. Prior to personhood, human life has no moral claims on us. 3. Any burden on the woman outweighs the value of the child. 4. The value of life depends on choice. 5. Discovery of a serious defect is grounds for termination. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/24/2014 6:33:33 AM EDT
[#44]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Sounds like a good idea. A lot of recent research indicates that some children are simply "born psychopaths" and stand a very high chance of becoming violent criminals as adults. I would have no problem with putting down obvious psychos like Adam Lanza, the Carr brothers, etc. post birth. Given the huge number of crack babies, babies born with fetal alcohol syndrome, etc. there should be the option to terminate them if they can reliably be identified as likely to become violent predators as adults. There is precedent for infanticide. Under Roman law, a father had until a child's first birthday to end its life, no questions asked. In. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/24/2014 6:34:25 AM EDT
[#45]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
........... No, it's true. The father had the right to kill by exposure any newborn they didn't want. And the pater familias was obligated to do so with deformed children. All quite legal. Not sure if his animation was in response to the Roman part of his post. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/24/2014 6:35:03 AM EDT
[#46]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
all sex is rape. see also; heterocage Only PIV sex is inherently rape. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/24/2014 6:35:11 AM EDT
[#47]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Not sure if his animation was in response to the Roman part of his post. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
........... No, it's true. The father had the right to kill by exposure any newborn they didn't want. And the pater familias was obligated to do so with deformed children. All quite legal. Not sure if his animation was in response to the Roman part of his post.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/24/2014 6:37:19 AM EDT
[#48]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Those same verses have been used to protest each of our past wars. You're seeing what you want to see. ETA: phone doesn't know how to grammar. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Now that your reflexive response to seeing scripture is out of the way, do you have anything to say to my point that these particular scriptures--whether you believe the Bible or not--portray a world that is not at all different from the one that now sees the open advocacy for the killing of newborns? My apologies if I missed sarcasm. Those same verses have been used to protest each of our past wars. You're seeing what you want to see. ETA: phone doesn't know how to grammar. Bad phone! I probably didn't pick the best scripture because I don't have time to run through the prophets at the moment, so my apologies for making my point poorly. At the heart of what I was saying is this: the Old Testament prophets who warned of Israel and Judah's imminent destruction spoke of their many sins against God, which included the literal murder of newborns just like in the article in the OP. Though the ancient Israelites were murdering them in the name of a pagan god instead of in the name of family security, the resultant activity--the murder of new babies--is exactly the same. That some misuse scriptures that describe Israel's sacrifice of newborns in an argument against the mobilization of an armed forces 100% composed of adult volunteers has no bearing on this discussion. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/24/2014 6:39:50 AM EDT
[#49]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
........... No, it's true. The father had the right to kill by exposure any newborn they didn't want. And the pater familias was obligated to do so with deformed children. All quite legal. Not sure if his animation was in response to the Roman part of his post. Is there a way you and Sylvan could get into a "sarcasm" competition?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/24/2014 6:41:55 AM EDT
[#50]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Is there a way you and Sylvan could get into a "sarcasm" competition?
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
........... No, it's true. The father had the right to kill by exposure any newborn they didn't want. And the pater familias was obligated to do so with deformed children. All quite legal. Not sure if his animation was in response to the Roman part of his post. Is there a way you and Sylvan could get into a "sarcasm" competition?
No. 
|
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
