Being alive is requisite to having an opinion. And, being alive, I have a certain bias towards staying that way. But had I been aborted before I lived I never would have known any different and a case could be made we would all be better off that way.
I was not making a moral argument either way, merely observing that to be living and pro-abortion is not fundamentally a contradiction in reason. If you have a response to that analysis I will respond, but otherwise I am disinterested in doing so further.
Go play in some regulated debate where there are all kinds of rules. I will speak here with common sense. Do you know how many times you have spewed your rules of debates to others?
The main rules here are honesty which most fail miserably.
Many Republicans are against life of the mother exceptions and the Republican Party platform does not allow any exceptions (as I've told you repeatedly)
But, the question here is more broad than that - do you have the right of self-defense to protect more than just your life? For example: if someone was about to rape you or your wife, etc. should you be legally allowed to shoot them?
You are a fool! The Republican platform speaks to the right of life to all innocent life. Life of mother abortions are not even mentioned in their platform you total idiot!
The entire GOP supports life of mother exceptions!
Every Republican I know of or have ever listened to supports life of mother exceptions.
I could care less if there are a few republicans who do not support life of mother exceptions. They are the vast minority as there are KKK members in the Democrat party. I guess all democrats are racist you fool!
" “I admire Thomas Jefferson, his words and his leadership — and I deplore his un-repentant slave holding. I admire Margaret Sanger being a pioneer and trying to empower women to have some control over their bodies — and I deplore the statements you have referenced. That is the way we often are when we look at flawed human beings. There are things we admire, and things that we deplore.” " - Hillary Clinton
"...human weeds,' 'reckless breeders,' 'spawning... human beings who never should have been born." Margaret Sanger, Pivot of Civilization, referring to immigrants and poor people
On the extermination of blacks:
"We do not want word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population," she said, "if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members." Woman's Body, Woman's Right: A Social History of Birth Control in America, by Linda Gordon
On respecting the rights of the mentally ill:
In her "Plan for Peace," Sanger outlined her strategy for eradication of those she deemed "feebleminded." Among the steps included in her evil scheme were immigration restrictions; compulsory sterilization; segregation to a lifetime of farm work; etc. Birth Control Review, April 1932, p. 107
I guess this helps illustrate the difference between you and I - when you say she thinks blacks are like human weeds, I search, find that is a oft-used, but unattributed and wrong assertion, and tell you it is wrong. If it were me, I would the either find the source or stop saying such a thing - you, on the other hand, feel no compunction whatsoever about just repeating blindly anything that you think supports you - even if it is a known falsehood.
Your posts only serve to strengthen the argument against you...
"We do not want word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population," she said, "if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members." Woman's Body, Woman's Right: A Social History of Birth Control in America, by Linda Gordon
So you Progressives are all about the Black Population ?
"Discrimination is a world-wide thing. It has to be opposed everywhere. That is why I feel the Negro’s plight here is linked with that of the oppressed around the globe.
The big answer, as I see it, is the education of the white man. The white man is the problem. It is the same as with the Nazis. We must change the white attitudes. That is where it lies."
"The most merciful thing that a large family does to one of its infant members is to kill it." Margaret Sanger, Women and the New Race (Eugenics Publ. Co., 1920, 1923)
Understandable why you Progressives are in line with Margret Sanger !
This is true. It is better for a baby to be aborted while it is innocent than for it to grow into a bastard who hates God and ends up in eternal dying in Hell's fire.
Yes. The baby aborted is in heaven, you are on your way to Hell. It would have been better for you if you had never been born. I believe you can still be saved, but I doubt that you will. You don't care what Jesus did for you, rejecting Him, and being rejected by Him. I honestly believe you will never repent of your sin and you will wake up in Hell wishing you had never been born.
Abortion is murder, those babies are in heaven. Sin is killing you and you are not innocent, you are full of dirt and you love it, you want all you can get while you can get it, and your paying more then you realize.
Yep, I said it, but I think the only way you will get it is by finding yourself unable to get out of the fire of Hell.
This sound pretty pro-choice. By your reasoning, aborted kids never have to risk going to hell, so abortion is a favor. Living people already deserve hell, so sending kids to heaven via murder isn't going to make their situation any worse. Furthermore, when we go to hell, where we deserve to be, we will wish we had never been born, so it's reasonable to grant this wish for countless others. It's more like sacrificing oneself for ones child to insure their place in heaven..via abortion...You're sick.
It sounds like you are not burning in Hell yet, that's good. I hope you get saved but I doubt you will, you think you are as good as God even though He is living and you are dying in your sins, condemned to Hell if you will not repent and believe on the Lord Jesus Christ who died for you and lives forever, risen from the dead and coming to judge the living (those who have received Him as their Savior) and the dead (those like you who think they have the right to exist as sinners outside of Hell but are stuck in death)
Abortion is murder, those babies are in heaven. Sin is killing you and you are not innocent, you are full of dirt and you love it, you want all you can get while you can get it, and your paying more then you realize.
Yep, I said it, but I think the only way you will get it is by finding yourself unable to get out of the fire of Hell.
So I guess you chose to be a murderer. I am totally against it. Yes, murdered babies go to heaven because they are innocent, but their blood is on your hands and you are a murderer if you support abortion, retard. Did I make myself clear, retard? I have not changed at all.
Your mental capacity is displayed when your inability to properly articulate your opinion compels you to resort to base insults. I won't be surprised if your comprehension is also put on display with another insult in response to this post.
I'm don't support abortion, that's the point. But if I believed the filth you preach, I would. Your reasoning implies that the best way to send the most people to heaven is to kill them en utero. If I had been aborted, I would be in heaven right now, rather than risking eternal hell if I die without being saved. Since you think I am already doomed to hell, you should think that aborting kids is a good idea since I'll end up in the same place regardless. Abortion doctors should be your hero. They will have ensured the eternal salvation of more people than your favorite preacher.
Your animosity toward God is propelling you into the fire of Hell, and who knows how quickly you will get there if you won't repent and believe on the Lord Jesus Christ to be saved from the fire. How did you become such an idiot?
You're viscious attitude is that of a murderer at heart. You want me in Hell, I want you saved from it. You speak hatred and I speak of the love of God which you hate. I don't read your stuff anymore......maybe a few words, but if you think I'm going to waste time with you, you are nutso. I gave up on you. I simply enjoy preaching the gospel of Jesus Christ, because every time you read it it testifies against your sin and I can't help thinking there is a tiny shred of truth you can see to get some light of the gospel to be saved.......but really I have written you off as a sinner bound for Hell. I really think you will never believe and will end up in Hell.
You're an evil bastard, trying to justify abortion. Even if you say you are against abortion, by twisting my words to imply abortion is good you are promoting evil and the blood of innocent babies is on your hands.
My interpretation of your reasoning doesn't make it my reasoning. It's your logic that justifies abortion, not mine. You know how much I disagree with you. That hasn't changed. Your words, which justify abortion, are not words that I agree with. Hence I am not trying to justify abortion.
There's still time to repent Saint. But I know you won't.
(Notice how I didn't call you retard, idiot, evil bastard or any other bullies insult?)
Man you are dense. How many times have I said I am a sinner who deserves justice, deserves to burn in Hell just like you, and it is impossible for me or you to justify our lives because we are sinners? In that Christ shed His blood for us, but I guess you say it was not for you, the innocent died for the ungodly, that in His resurrection we can be forgiven and justified by His life. It is Him who justifies the ungodly, your sin justifies God to leave you in the fire of Hell forever if you will not repent and believe on Him who died for you and rose to be the justifier of all who believe on Him.
It is you who is being self-righteous, and losing your life unjustified. You're a blooming idiot, enjoy your sin while you can.
This is why I try to avoid reading your garbage...your a hateful bastard, you would be happy for me to wake up in Hell, I want nobody to end up there but when it's obvious they don't care where they are going and all they want to do is hate on people like me who try to warn them..........well, it's better for me to leave you in the dust
As it seems abundantly clear from your account that I am going to burn in Hell, I would be happiest if you not end up their as well. I prefer to keep good company.
How could a case be made that one would have been better off being aborted? Just who would decide what the standards should be? Wouldn't that decision-making be an exercise in immorality, in and of itself?
I never said such a case could be made. I said a general case could be made that life is not a net benefit, so we would all have been better off never existing to experience the net negative. Life predisposes us to a preferential bias for itself, but the common presumptions which people seem to operate upon (that life is a net benefit and/or has value) have never actually been proven. Which is really all one needs in order to make the case that maybe the general pro-life position might be wrong.
If you want to get into particular individuals, which was not my original suggestion, then that would be a complex moral question for a moralizing person. Given that I am not a moralizer but an amoralist egoist, my contention is that the preferential course of action is that which gives the individual the greatest self autonomy which accounts for any loss of autonomy to the individual due to social destabilization.
I said an argument could be made to that end, not that I have one to make myself. The only assertion I made was that someone could make the case, and I warranted that by explaining that the belief that life is a net positive is itself an unfounded assertion which minimally levels the playing field. Compound that by the bias natural selection creates for living things to prefer life, and we even have reason to doubt the legitimacy of our intuitive preference for life. I made no claim beyond that, and will not... partially on account of my not believing such a net positive/negative can be assessed given the subjectivity of cost benefit across time even when pertaining to a single organism. This does not mean life is not a net negative, so it does not preclude the possibility of that argument, but it does mean I find our capacity for assessing the truth of the claim to be seriously undermined if not impossible.
Nothing wrong with absurdism, really. And I do no see why that should be anymore true of the net negative view than the net positive. Unless I mistake your meaning.
The net positive assumption is the only position one encounters among the non-suicidal and the living. I just can't think of a position that could argue for life being a net negative in relation to an unknowable state. Even if it were absurd, I think it would be hard to assert. You said that a case could be made that life is not a net benefit. I'm wondering what kind of case that would be, if it can be made, and how strong it would be (weak I assume).
The prevalence of the net positive position may alternatively be explained by the bias favoring life selected for by nature, but this neither disproves the net negative account nor establishes that there is no non-suicidal living person who believes in the net negative position.
I agree that any case for the net negative would be weak for the reasons you advance, but I see this as entirely non-unique to the net negative position. Everything you said against it is equally true of the net positive position.
I expect that a net negative position would be a weak one though I've never seen that position advanced. It seems so weak in fact, that it amounts merely to the assertion that it exists. No net negative position has been put forth, which is unique for a position.
What I have said against a net negative position is that I have never encountered one. This cannot be said of a net positive position.
Your conclusion is premature and persists to ignore what I have already pointed out. That the net negative position is uncommon or absent may be attributed to the bias induced in living things towards regarding life as a net positive, rather than to any actual weakness in argument. Moreover, that the net positive position rests heavily upon assertion itself cannot be dismissed so readily as you are wont to do. In fact, I would say that there is no such thing as a net positive position insofar as a position suggests some minimal rationale which is fundamentally lacking. There is only an assumption, and as the bar is set so low all one need do to render the negative position credibility equally credible is to assert it.
That's the problem, no one has asserted it. You have only asserted that one potentially could. The absence of a net negative position being the result of bias is relevant insofar as it makes my point; that the net negative position is absent. Simply attacking a net positive position (perhaps dubiously) does not amount to presenting a net negative position. It's basically just half a tu quoque fallacy.
It seems your aim is to stand by a position without ever presenting one.
That you are not aware of anyone asserting it does not mean it has not been asserted. The absence of the point being made also does not speak to whether it can be made, or whether it would be weaker if eventually made than the net positive position.
I was not attacking the net positive position, but qualifying it for what it is: an unfounded assertion likely owing to an evolved bias that favors life. That is a position in and of itself, whether you regard it as being one or not. I never wanted to make a larger statement; you are the one who kept/keeps trying to pull one out from me, and I keep responding to decline.
I was not attacking the net positive position, but qualifying it for what it is: an unfounded assertion likely owing to an evolved bias that favors life
I would have to see a net positive argument to assess the validity of this a qualification. Especially since, whether founded or unfounded, my bias inclines me to think this is not likely the case.
Jace: I said a general case could be made that life is not a net benefit
Amarel: What does an argument for life being a net negative look like? …I'm not sure someone could actually make the claim without delving into absurdity
Jace: I never wanted to make a larger statement; you are the one who kept/keeps trying to pull one out from me, and I keep responding to decline
Because it is better to be aborted as a baby and go to heaven, innocent, than to die in Hell as a sinner forever in the fire. That fact is not an excuse for murdering babies before they are born.
Abortion is always killing an innocent child, it's murder. There's going to be a lot of baby killers burning in Hell forever.
That would mean that an opinion Dies with a person. if I died, before you read this, would I still not be expressing an opinion? How does death make an opinion invalid? How do I not "Have an opinion" if my dying words were to express an opinion.
-
Consider that instead of dying we're put in isolation from which no information can enter or leave. does that mean that a person's opinion ceases to exist then? Despite it being functionally Identicle to death, would not they still have an opinion? and that opinion remain unchanged?
if I died, before you read this, would I still not be expressing an opinion?
Exactly - you would NOT be expressing an opinion. The indications of your former opinion - this website - could continue to influence others.
Consider that instead of dying we're put in isolation from which no information can enter or leave. does that mean that a person's opinion ceases to exist then?
How does this respond to Jace's comment that in order to have an opinion, they need to be alive:
I don't read any of this this guy's stuff, I know where he's standing and it's pure evil...I glanced through some of the responses. If you try to team up with this guy on issues, your getting in bed with the devil.
You will either ban me (or keep avoiding by some other means) and continue to show the weakness of your argument, or answer the question and continue to debate...
A person doesn't abort a fetus. They don't set out with the purpose of killing something that "is not alive." If that was all they were doing no one would make a fuss. No one's going to arrest me if I break a stone. What they are killing is the potential for that fetus to move to the next stage of human life, a baby. Fetuses left alone will not stay fetuses, they turn into children, which is why they are aborted. It's not that people don't want a fetus, it's that they don't want a child. The whole purpose of abortion is built around a pro-life concept. That the fetus will turn into a child the mother doesn't want to have. If a fetus stayed a fetus there wouldn't be a point to abortion in the first place. There wouldn't be any inconveniences or health issues. It is the fact that human fetuses turn into human babies that makes people want to get an abortion. Subconsciously pro-choicers are admitting that that fetus will inconvenience them because it will be most definitely be a living human with a few months, even if it is uncertain whether it is human at the moment. By killing an eagle egg you get the same fine as if you shoot an eagle. It has the same end effect, whether the egg is an eagle or not. A potential life is destroyed. It's the same with abortion. Whether it is a human or not now, a human fetus will become a human. A human with a life, experiences, and memories. The potential human may become pro-choice or pro-life, or not care and smoke weed its whole life, but at least it will get to experience life. By aborting a fetus you are destroying a lifetime of experiences, whether good ones or bad ones.
From high school bio is the seven requirements for life which fetuses match all of except perhaps the seventh, the ability to reproduce. However 3 year olds can't reproduce either so unless you are going to argue that the killing of 3 year olds is ok as well you cannot argue that a fetus is not living. The argument seems to be saying that unless you have experienced all of life, you do not have the capability to be a life. Well is a virgin a human? Again one of the 7 requirements for life is reproduction, something virgins haven't experienced. So why are they human and a fetus isn't? Because they have the capability to reproduce (in most circumstances). This proves the point that it is not experience itself that makes one alive, but rather the capability to one day experience. A fetus can one day experience and is therefore considered a living human.
The human species as a whole fulfills those 7 requirements of life. So it doesn't matter therefore if a fetus or a virgin do not fulfill one of them. A tadpole is still considered the same species frog, though it doesn't have all the capabilities of a frog. Humans, like all animals go through multiple phases of life. Being a fetus is just one of those phases of life. You yourself were a fetus once, and you yourself have already passed that stage of life. Many seem to have this elitist view that as you have already passed that stage of life you are superior to said fetus. That you hold the power of life and death over that child simply because you are no longer in that stage of life. It's similar to when someone assumes they're superior intellectually merely because they are older. In this case however, instead of ending with a stuck up person and an annoyed person, you end up with a dead person and an arrogant person who believes the death was morally justifiable. I will never be pro-choice. Even if there's a chance a fetus isn't a human I'd rather err on the side of life.
"For the mental health of the future child, sometimes abortion is a good option". This is a direct quote from a debate with a pro-choicer. Under that logic, for the "mental health of the future child" I should be able to kill anyone with a mental health problem. The logic is dangerously bordering on the logic of fascist Germany, that those with mental health issues are not human and do not have the same rights as humans. Babies do not have the same mental capacity as a fully grown human either. So under that logic killing babies is fine. It is getting very close to a dangerous ideology in which killing the old and young is ok because they do not have the same abilities as me or you. I have more thoughts and feelings than a baby. A philosopher probably has deeper thoughts than me. Can I morally kill a baby? Can that philosopher morally kill me? It is an odd train of thought. Because someone thinks more does not make them more of a person. A person in a coma thinks at the same levels or even less than a fetus. Can I kill them? No! If they come out again they will have the same feelings I do, and advanced thought. They are still considered human. So how is it different with fetuses? Even if they don't have advanced thought now, they will later. So just like someone in a coma they should be considered a human being. You can't cherry pick. Are people in comas AND fetuses not human? Or, as we should argue, are people in comas and fetuses both human? The latter should be true.
One major argument pro-choicers throw out a lot is that it could inconvenience a mother financially. But the whole "it's too expensive" argument is freaking immoral. No matter what your views are, the question should be whether or not that fetus is a human not whether or not there's enough money to keep it fed and alive. It’s expensive to keep a person in a nursing home too.
So here we must weigh what is important. Are money problems more important than death? Because whether or not a human fetus is a living being, it will one day be a human being and by killing that fetus you are killing that future human being. (S)he hasn't experienced life yet, but it will if you do not abort it. No matter what you say you have to admit that by killing that fetus, you are killing that future human. There is nothing that can be argued in the contrary.
And that future human could be great. They could change the world. Maya Angelou. Malcolm X. Steve Jobs. Bill Clinton. Regina Louise. Dr. Wayne Dyer. Eric Clapton. Dave Pelzer. Tom Monaghan. What do they all have in common? They weren't wanted by their birth parents, they all might have had “terrible lives” (an argument I’ve heard put forth. They might have a bad life if they’re allowed to live. But they might have a great one). But sure they should have all been aborted depriving the world of some of its best.
I must now put another point forward. Let's look at this argument completely from an outside perspective with no opinions or thoughts influencing our decisions. Let's say it is unsure whether a fetus can be considered human. Is it not better to be unsure and abortion free, in case there is even the slightest chance it is a human life? Do you think pregnancy is worse than death? Because even if you don't THINK a fetus a human life, (and there is no objective answer or there wouldn't be a debate on this) you must admit that if your opinion may end pain and discomfort, and mine may end a death, wouldn't you rather (even if you were 99% sure of your opinion) a life potentially saved is worth more than a life potentially set back?
I think people should avoid the whole - 'it's not human' argument altogether... abortion falls within the woman's right to self-defense to protect herself from the harms of pregnancy. In Florida, you can legally kill a full grown person who breaks into your house to steal your tv - impacting you only financially. A pregnancy impacts a woman in many ways - financially, hormonally/mentally, socially, and, of course, physically - some of the impacts will be permanent. That a person would have the self-defense right to prevent loss of tv, but not the pains of bringing a pregnancy to term is completely illogical and hypocritical.
I would support the argument that "abortion falls within the woman's right to self-defense to protect herself from the harms of pregnancy" if women to support the notion that "if they get pregnant, and the father does not want the child, they cannot collect child support. They either have to raise the child on their own, or get an abortion."
If this is not palatable to women, then I would still support the argument if women would instead support the notion that "if the father wants the child, then the woman has to carry the fetus for the full term unless her life in danger." In other words, if her life is not in danger, then there's no need to apply the "self-defense" clause. She will be inconvenienced for 9 months but they in turn get to inconvenience a man for 18 years. It may not sound fair but it is better than the raw deal men are currently getting.
If women are not willing to support neither one of those notions, then they just want to have their cake and eat it too. And to the extent that they feel they can get away with it, they will continue to maintain the current status quo.
if her life is not in danger, then there's no need to apply the "self-defense" clause.
Does your right to self-defense only apply to save your life? If someone was going to anally rape you, should it be illegal for you to shoot them to prevent it?
Can you name a state where it is legal to shoot someone who is fucking you up the ass? I mean, if that was the case, then there would be a lot of dead politicians ;)