36 of 40
36
Pro-life Atheists
Posted: 10 January 2009 12:05 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 526 ]  
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1639
Joined  2007-12-20
Carstonio - 03 January 2009 04:42 PM
Nulono - 03 January 2009 03:55 PM

““To say that men and women should not inject their ‘personal morality’ into public policy debates is a practical absurdity; our law is by definition a codification of morality” ~President-elect Obama


Not quite. Most of us agree that cheating on one’s spouse is immoral, but most of us also agree that trying to make cheating illegal would constitute an invasion of privacy. Just because something is immoral doesn’t justify making it illegal.


The operative words here are “just because”.  Something does not become illegal solely because it is immoral.  But we use our moral beliefs to come to conclusions about what “should” become illegal—-they are part of the consideration. Those beliefs are often at odds depending on one’s perspective of what is “immoral.”

 Signature 

“Every war is a war against children.”
Howard Zinn

Profile
 
 
Posted: 10 January 2009 12:47 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 527 ]  
Member
Avatar
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  305
Joined  2008-10-08
Giova - 10 January 2009 04:16 PM
Nulono - 09 January 2009 08:01 PM

I see I put you on ignore for a good reason.

Enjoy the last conversation you may ever have—everyone else has already put you on their ignore list. And I can completely understand why they have done so without ever considering your last word syndrome.

And like fuck I was asking you for that moral advice. I don’t need moral advice from someone who supports pedophilia. I see you are quite the NAMBLA fan on that site. No wonder you are opposed to abortion so much: you want the kiddies all to yourself!

Great. I support the right of young people to make their own sexual decisions, and that automatically means I’m attracted to them myself?

lindajean - 10 January 2009 05:05 PM
Carstonio - 03 January 2009 04:42 PM
Nulono - 03 January 2009 03:55 PM

““To say that men and women should not inject their ‘personal morality’ into public policy debates is a practical absurdity; our law is by definition a codification of morality” ~President-elect Obama


Not quite. Most of us agree that cheating on one’s spouse is immoral, but most of us also agree that trying to make cheating illegal would constitute an invasion of privacy. Just because something is immoral doesn’t justify making it illegal.


The operative words here are “just because”.  Something does not become illegal solely because it is immoral.  But we use our moral beliefs to come to conclusions about what “should” become illegal—-they are part of the consideration. Those beliefs are often at odds depending on one’s perspective of what is “immoral.”

Cheating on one’s spouse is not immoral.

 Signature 

“There is undoubtedly an important secular debate to be had about the ethics of the death penalty…” -Sam Harris
“There is undoubtedly an important secular debate to be had about the ethics of embryonic stem cell research and abortion…” -Me

Jump through the Blackmun Hole!

Salt Creek has discovered the meaning of the first half of “Nulono”. Now, what language uses “nul” for zero?

Profile
 
 
Posted: 10 January 2009 12:50 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 528 ]  
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1639
Joined  2007-12-20

author=“M is for Malapert” date=“1231247064”]

Many pro-choice people are like me: perfectly willing to accept a European-style compromise, where effective contraception and early abortion (up to 10 or 12 weeks) are readily available, uncontroversial, and integrated into the medical system. (In other words, the same doctor who does a woman’s Pap tests and delivers her babies, also prescribes her contraception and performs her abortions if it fails.  Physician-staffed HMOs, like Kaiser, already do this.) 

Meanwhile, second-trimester abortion would be available only after review by a board of doctors, and third-trimester abortion would remain as it is today, mostly illegal, hardly occurring, and not an issue.

In over ten years of debating this issue, only one pro-lifer has agreed.  They are willing to display pictures of dead second-trimester fetuses, constituting a tiny percentage of the total number of abortions even when they aren’t faked, as if later abortion should be considered worse than abortion at five or six weeks, when the embryo is too small to be seen.  But they are not willing to do anything that would make such abortions as rare as they are elsewhere, by making contraception and early abortion readily available to all women, including teens.

Mal, your conversation here is very interesting. I’m learning a lot about abortion that I never thought about before.

It seems that the term “abortion” is too general of a term when you talk about the 3 different stages of abortion above. It would be more clear to the public (I think) if medical professionals and politicians came up with different terms for early, mid and late term abortions.

For example, I tend to favor abortions in the first trimester and not so in 2nd and third because of obvious reasons.  So if I could refer to the first trimester as “extractions” everyone would know what I am talking about.  If I was referring to 2nd trimester as “drawing out” people would understand that term. And 3rd trimesters as “abortion”.... (I’m not advocating those exact terms, just that making a semantic separation between the terms would be helpful.)

As long as the righters can throw around “abortion” to mean killing a fetus at 38 weeks and terminating a fetus at 2 weeks,  then they will continue to be successful at convincing “uneducated” people that all abortions are the same dastardly deeds.

 Signature 

“Every war is a war against children.”
Howard Zinn

Profile
 
 
Posted: 10 January 2009 12:58 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 529 ]  
Member
Avatar
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  305
Joined  2008-10-08

“Terminate” is a euphemism. You can terminate a process, but not an entity. Killing is terminating a life.

Regardless of when it is done, an abortion is an abortion is an abortion. All are the killing of a prenate. Just like stealing $4 or $40 or $4,000,000 are all theft. Just like killing a 4-month-old or a 4-year-old or a 40-year old are all homicide.

[ Edited: 10 January 2009 01:02 PM by Nulono]
 Signature 

“There is undoubtedly an important secular debate to be had about the ethics of the death penalty…” -Sam Harris
“There is undoubtedly an important secular debate to be had about the ethics of embryonic stem cell research and abortion…” -Me

Jump through the Blackmun Hole!

Salt Creek has discovered the meaning of the first half of “Nulono”. Now, what language uses “nul” for zero?

Profile
 
 
Posted: 10 January 2009 08:44 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 530 ]  
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2927
Joined  2006-12-17
Nulono - 10 January 2009 05:58 PM

“Terminate” is a euphemism. You can terminate a process, but not an entity. Killing is terminating a life.

Regardless of when it is done, an abortion is an abortion is an abortion. All are the killing of a prenate. Just like stealing $4 or $40 or $4,000,000 are all theft. Just like killing a 4-month-old or a 4-year-old or a 40-year old are all homicide.

Prove it.  All you have ever done here is state your opinion and claim it as fact.  Nobody agrees with you—doesn’t that indicate something, or are you the only one who is ever right?

Profile
 
 
Posted: 11 January 2009 02:00 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 531 ]  
Member
Avatar
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  305
Joined  2008-10-08
burt - 11 January 2009 01:44 AM

Nobody agrees with you—doesn’t that indicate something

No it doesn’t.

 Signature 

“There is undoubtedly an important secular debate to be had about the ethics of the death penalty…” -Sam Harris
“There is undoubtedly an important secular debate to be had about the ethics of embryonic stem cell research and abortion…” -Me

Jump through the Blackmun Hole!

Salt Creek has discovered the meaning of the first half of “Nulono”. Now, what language uses “nul” for zero?

Profile
 
 
Posted: 11 January 2009 08:34 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 532 ]  
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2927
Joined  2006-12-17
Nulono - 11 January 2009 07:00 AM
burt - 11 January 2009 01:44 AM

Nobody agrees with you—doesn’t that indicate something

No it doesn’t.

Well, I guess you are just a voice in the wilderness.  Just like the old Hebrew prophets, except you don’t have Big Sky Daddy to back you up.  Tough being the only person who really knows what’s what.  Must really feed your martyr complex.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 11 January 2009 09:11 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 533 ]  
Member
Avatar
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  305
Joined  2008-10-08

Many people do actually agree with me, just not on this forum. An ad populum argument is not going to get you anywhere anyway, as it is fallacious by nature.

 Signature 

“There is undoubtedly an important secular debate to be had about the ethics of the death penalty…” -Sam Harris
“There is undoubtedly an important secular debate to be had about the ethics of embryonic stem cell research and abortion…” -Me

Jump through the Blackmun Hole!

Salt Creek has discovered the meaning of the first half of “Nulono”. Now, what language uses “nul” for zero?

Profile
 
 
Posted: 11 January 2009 10:43 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 534 ]  
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  5404
Joined  2006-09-27
Nulono - 11 January 2009 02:11 PM

Many people do actually agree with me, just not on this forum. An ad populum argument is not going to get you anywhere anyway, as it is fallacious by nature.

How nice for you that your fellow pedophiles agree with you. Along with libertarian and ‘pro-life’ religious nutjobs. You can state that an embryo is an “entity” with legal or natural rights, and do it, as you have done, without arguing the point, but rather by pointing out that other people (similarly incapable of arguing the point) agree with you (and what is that but ad populam?) That upon which you and they agree most clearly is on a disrespect for or even hatred of women, the only human demographic on the planet to whom you wish to deny rights. What’s frightening about your particular insanity is that your political philosophy denies protection to anyone except embryos and those who can hire their own private armies. Well, that’s Objectivism for ya.

Your position as revealed by your postings elsewhere indicates a disposition toward minimal restriction on consensual behavior, and toward making that the highest objective of a political philosophy. If you scratch its surface, the details are deeply misogynistic and patriarchal. You could be a Muslim fundie except for substituting infantile, grandiose selfhood for the religious commandment. You can leave the word GOD out of your discourse, but that doesn’t mean that you aren’t a religious nut.

[ Edited: 11 January 2009 10:49 AM by Traces Elk]
 Signature 

INVEST in cynicism!

Profile
 
 
Posted: 11 January 2009 10:58 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 535 ]  
Newbie
Rank
Total Posts:  49
Joined  2008-12-24
Nulono - 11 January 2009 02:11 PM

An ad populum argument

For constantly saying the word “Ad this” or “Argumentum that” you deserve to have a pile of hay shoved up your ass. It’s become your sole rebuttal. There are better ways of arguing than constantly recycling dictionary definitions of Latinate informal fallacies: everyone just gets more annoyed reading a post where every other post is nothing but “Nah ah. Argumentum ad ________!!!.” You just make yourself look like more of a moron. Hurray, you read nizkor.org! Have ten thousand Internet points!

Profile
 
 
Posted: 11 January 2009 11:17 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 536 ]  
Member
Avatar
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  305
Joined  2008-10-08

1: I am not against women. I am a feminist.
2: I am not a pedophile.
3: I support the rights of everyone, not “embryos and those who can hire their own private armies”. I am a liberal.
4: Fallacious arguments do not deserve reply such as you demand. You’re trying to use the fact that my opponents’ arguments are riddled with logical fallacies against me?
5: I AM NOT A PEDOPHILE!

 Signature 

“There is undoubtedly an important secular debate to be had about the ethics of the death penalty…” -Sam Harris
“There is undoubtedly an important secular debate to be had about the ethics of embryonic stem cell research and abortion…” -Me

Jump through the Blackmun Hole!

Salt Creek has discovered the meaning of the first half of “Nulono”. Now, what language uses “nul” for zero?

Profile
 
 
Posted: 11 January 2009 11:18 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 537 ]  
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  5404
Joined  2006-09-27
Nulono - 09 January 2009 03:04 PM

But “harm” is not qualified, so it could apply to both. If I hire you to babysit my 2 children, and tell you not to cause harm, you mustn’t harm my daughter, or my son, or my television.

If you harmed my daughter, you can’t say “I thought ‘harm’ only applied to your son, because you didn’t list all the entities to which harm was forbidden.”.

If the noun “harm” is not qualified, it defalts to ANY harm; harm to the child is harm, harm to the mother is harm, and harm to both is harm.

Nor is “harm” qualified by attempting to convince people that you can decide the presence or absence of harm in any example without first defining it. The way you use the word, it is simply any action that your philosophy wishes to prevent.

Nulono - 11 January 2009 04:17 PM

3: I support the rights of everyone, not “embryos and those who can hire their own private armies”. I am a liberal.

You do not support the rights of everyone. You do not support the right of women to choose to have abortions. Your philosophy makes choices about the priorities of certain “rights”, but does not spell out how those priorities are determined. Your stipulations are always arbitrary, since you do not define “harm” except as harm is done to your ideology.

So this is how Objectivism handles it. Ultimate liberty and freedom of conscience except for those actions it wishes to prohibit. Still doesn’t define what “harm” is except as “anything that damages the ideology of Objectivism”. Ooh la la, as they used to say in France during the Reign of Terror.

Nulono - 11 January 2009 04:17 PM

5: I AM NOT A PEDOPHILE!

Deny it if you like. You would like to be free to have sex with children. What you are also, incontrovertibly, is a buttwick dickweed internet troll. As well as a pedophile.

[ Edited: 11 January 2009 11:28 AM by Traces Elk]
 Signature 

INVEST in cynicism!

Profile
 
 
Posted: 11 January 2009 11:34 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 538 ]  
Member
Avatar
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  305
Joined  2008-10-08
Salt Creek - 11 January 2009 04:18 PM
Nulono - 11 January 2009 04:17 PM

3: I support the rights of everyone, not “embryos and those who can hire their own private armies”. I am a liberal.

You do not support the rights of everyone. You do not support the right of women to choose to have abortions.

Nor do you support the right of men to rape women. Why do you have such a disrespect for or even hatred of men?

Nulono - 11 January 2009 04:17 PM

5: I AM NOT A PEDOPHILE!

Deny it if you like. You would like to be free to have sex with children. What you are also, incontrovertibly, is a buttwick dickweed internet troll. As well as a pedophile.

I would like children to be free to make their own sexual choices, and not be treated as untermensch.

Oh, BTW, Objectivism is about agression (the initiation of force), not harm.

[ Edited: 11 January 2009 11:40 AM by Nulono]
 Signature 

“There is undoubtedly an important secular debate to be had about the ethics of the death penalty…” -Sam Harris
“There is undoubtedly an important secular debate to be had about the ethics of embryonic stem cell research and abortion…” -Me

Jump through the Blackmun Hole!

Salt Creek has discovered the meaning of the first half of “Nulono”. Now, what language uses “nul” for zero?

Profile
 
 
Posted: 11 January 2009 11:57 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 539 ]  
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  5404
Joined  2006-09-27
Nulono - 11 January 2009 04:34 PM
Salt Creek - 11 January 2009 04:18 PM
Nulono - 11 January 2009 04:17 PM

3: I support the rights of everyone, not “embryos and those who can hire their own private armies”. I am a liberal.

You do not support the rights of everyone. You do not support the right of women to choose to have abortions.

Nor do you support the right of men to rape women. Why do you have such a disrespect for or even hatred of men?

Nulono - 11 January 2009 04:17 PM

5: I AM NOT A PEDOPHILE!

Deny it if you like. You would like to be free to have sex with children. What you are also, incontrovertibly, is a buttwick dickweed internet troll. As well as a pedophile.

I would like children to be free to make their own sexual choices, and not be treated as untermensch.

Oh, BTW, Objectivism is about agression (the initiation of force), not harm.

The point is to explain how the initiation of force causes harm. The point is to explain how your philosophy makes the choices it does, rather than simply to assert that the initiation of force is rejected. A position on the initiation of force cannot be an axiom, but a consequence of the axioms of Objectivism.

If you make children free to make their own sexual choices it can be generalized to making everyone free to make their own choices in the absence of complete information. Making choices with incomplete information is necessary, and is the definition of risk. You need to explain your axioms with respect to the concept of risk, and whether you believe information is a commodity.

In fact, one does not need a private army, sensu strictu. One needs a private army of information-gatherers.

In any event, that is one of the ways that Objectivism self-destructs. It stresses liberty by avoiding initiation of force rather than liberty through the availability of information. The a priori obligation to disclose information is seen as an initiation of force, isn’t it?

Nulono - 11 January 2009 04:34 PM
Salt Creek - 11 January 2009 04:18 PM
Nulono - 11 January 2009 04:17 PM

3: I support the rights of everyone, not “embryos and those who can hire their own private armies”. I am a liberal.

You do not support the rights of everyone. You do not support the right of women to choose to have abortions.

Nor do you support the right of men to rape women. Why do you have such a disrespect for or even hatred of men?

Men and women are autonomous decision-making entities and embryos are not. Rape is prohibited because it abridges the autonomy of a decision-making entity. Prohibiting abortion in all cases abridges the autonomy of a decision-making entity. The cases in which abortion is prohibited must address the decision-making capability of the woman seeking an abortion, and must address the specifics of each individual decision. M is for Malapert has addressed many of those considerations in this very thread.

[ Edited: 11 January 2009 12:08 PM by Traces Elk]
 Signature 

INVEST in cynicism!

Profile
 
 
Posted: 11 January 2009 12:01 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 540 ]  
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1044
Joined  2008-02-15
Nulono - 11 January 2009 04:34 PM

I would like children to be free to make their own sexual choices, and not be treated as untermensch.

They weren’t free to decide if they wanted to be born or not, you made that decision for them! They come into the world ignorant and helpless, totally dependent on their parents, and want do you tell them, make your own fucking choices!  Do the world a favor and never have children.

 Signature 

Why is there Something instead of Nothing: No reason or ever knowable reason.

Kissing Hank’s Ass
Pope Song (rated NC17).

Profile
 
 
   
36 of 40
36
 
RSS 2.0     Atom Feed