'Planned Parenthood' Advises Pimp of Underage Sex Slaves

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
141

[quote]Schwarzfahrer wrote:

[quote]katzenjammer wrote:

And you ought to know - you clearly don’t have the slightest idea of what you’re talking about, but are merely parroting warmed-over anthropology, most of which is ludicrously out of date. What you really are is a bundle of walking prejudices pretending to a kind of faux enlightenment. Your above “assertions” - even with the deepest charity, they cannot be called anything like arguments - aren’t even worth bothering about. [/quote]

please educate me about the out of date anthropology.
Because I want to know.

When did your “gawd” again find it appropriate to interfere? Right, that was pretty late. In fact, for countless millenia, we had untold tribes decide for themselves when to kill, plunder, steal, or, abort.

[/quote]

Before I get to your shallow anthropology, first allow me to ask you a simple question: is it your contention that because people used to kill each other, and otherwise maim and plunder, therefore there is no God?

Is that your stunning insight?

142

No.
It’s about showing that most concepts about THE god are, from a moral point of view, vague at best, sometimes even repulsive.

The idea in this abortion thread is that moral arguments “from god” fail consistently because those gods, especially the catholic skytyrant, are far from consistent.

It’s not about we did X all the time, so I guess we could go on.
Of course you can argue that moral progression should look forward, at least I hope so, but fetching gods from the bronze age makes it actually harder to develop some sort of a morality for humankind, or even start a discussion.

For instance, placing a potential unborn soul above everything while at the same time going to war with god on your side makes your position untrustworthy.
Then there’s overpopulation, other religions, your particular concept unblessed souls etc etc there’s so much it makes your head spin.

Placing these in the context of history tells me that you cannot invoke religion to legislate people’s intimate affairs eg abortion.

143

[quote]Schwarzfahrer wrote:
That’s the sad thing about lacking education.
It’s hard to admit to oneself.

I know you are someone who’s constantly parroting catholic lines.
But why don’t you just pick up a few dozen history books and some more about indigenous people and protohistory?
See for yourself.

Marriage, morals, gods and cults - You’d be amazed how much you think about human nature is flat out wrong.
[/quote]

You made the claim a specific claim, show me the proof.

144

[quote]Schwarzfahrer wrote:
No.
It’s about showing that most concepts about THE god are, from a moral point of view, vague at best, sometimes even repulsive.

The idea in this abortion thread is that moral arguments “from god” fail consistently because those gods, especially the catholic skytyrant, are far from consistent.
[/quote]

Ich sage dies, damit Sie es richtig zu verstehen. Du bist diejenige, die Gott in dieser Argumentation nicht mitgebracht. Blick zurück durch die letzten sechs Seiten und bis hierher gekommen, Gott sei nicht einmal erwähnt.

145

[quote]Schwarzfahrer wrote:
No.
It’s about showing that most concepts about THE god are, from a moral point of view, vague at best, sometimes even repulsive.[/quote]

  1. Maybe your “concepts” about God are vague. However, that’s hardly His fault.

  2. From where do you get this “moral point of view”?

  3. And exactly how does this “view” show that God is vague?

So a puny little, ungrateful twerp called “Schwarzfahrer” - who owes his entire being to “Something” he cannot explain, or even recognize - chastises this “Something” (which also made time and all matter and the entire universe) for being inconsistent on the basis of some Absolute Moral Principle that he can neither explain nor justify. Yep. That makes a lot of sense.

[quote] It’s not about we did X all the time, so I guess we could go on.
Of course you can argue that moral progression should look forward, at least I hope so, but fetching gods from the bronze age makes it actually harder to develop some sort of a morality for humankind, or even start a discussion. [/quote]

Who is “fetching gods” from the “bronze age”? Are you saying God is somehow constrained by time? On what basis do you make this claim?

Every “unborn” soul is precious to God. Your problem with this is what? Are you saying you don’t believe this (that every soul is precious to God) is consistent with Augustinian/Thomistic theories of “just war”?

Have you run out of trying to actually assemble an actual argument? (What about overpopulation? Does overpopulation even exist? “Other religions” - what about them? Would you like to talk about one in particular? Which one? etc…)

At least you’ve been blessed with an unconscious sense of irony.

[quote]Placing these in the context of history tells me that you cannot invoke religion to legislate people’s intimate affairs eg abortion.
[/quote]

All I have to say is, you have a decidedly odd sense of intimacy; I should think murder, being a quintessential public act, is everyone’s business.

146

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]Schwarzfahrer wrote:
No.
It’s about showing that most concepts about THE god are, from a moral point of view, vague at best, sometimes even repulsive.

The idea in this abortion thread is that moral arguments “from god” fail consistently because those gods, especially the catholic skytyrant, are far from consistent.
[/quote]

Ich sage dies, damit Sie es richtig zu verstehen. Du bist diejenige, die Gott in dieser Argumentation nicht mitgebracht. Blick zur�¼ck durch die letzten sechs Seiten und bis hierher gekommen, Gott sei nicht einmal erw�¤hnt.[/quote]

This is practically gibberish. You probably try to say here that Biblestudy Inc wasn’t part of the discussion.
And that would be as thruthful as creationists denying their religous motivation.

147

[quote]katzenjammer wrote:
So a puny little, ungrateful twerp called “Schwarzfahrer” - who owes his entire being to “Something” he cannot explain, or even recognize - chastises this “Something” (which also made time and all matter and the entire universe) for being inconsistent on the basis of some Absolute Moral Principle that he can neither explain nor justify. Yep. That makes a lot of sense.
[/quote]
So you can “recognize” a certain god and can “explain it”? Strange, when these gods NEVER speak or act directly, something that makes it so much harder to recognize and explain.
I say I don’t know the big answers, nobody does, but I do know your stories crazy and your assumptions are very weakly rooted on moral and historical grounds.

[quote]katzenjammer wrote:

[quote] Schwarzfahrer: It’s not about we did X all the time, so I guess we could go on.
Of course you can argue that moral progression should look forward, at least I hope so, but fetching gods from the bronze age makes it actually harder to develop some sort of a morality for humankind, or even start a discussion. [/quote]

Who is “fetching gods” from the “bronze age”? Are you saying God is somehow constrained by time? On what basis do you make this claim?
[/quote]

Yes, the whole book is a bronze age text, or collection of texts. It’s obviously not a timeless work since it fits perfectly into the determined timesframes and is practically useless when it comes to modern discoveries. Most problems humanity faces today cannot be solved with it’s help - at all- contrary to bronze age problems that sadly revolve around other gods, donkey shit and mesopotamian tribal strife.

[quote]katzenjammer wrote:

Every “unborn” soul is precious to God. Your problem with this is what? Are you saying you don’t believe this (that every soul is precious to God) is consistent with Augustinian/Thomistic theories of “just war”? [/quote]

Very simple, you can make a strong case for placing a “soul” or life or salvation above everything else. Some sects do that and it works for them. However, these fellows are a rare breed of peace-extremists.
But you cannot construct a system where war can be just but abortion can be never.
A position like “just war” is laughable, and it comes from highly politically motivated writers who, for instance, also justified torture. From a historical perspective it’s clear why they would have never spoken for a “just” abortion, back then that was female business.

[quote]katzenjammer wrote:

Have you run out of trying to actually assemble an actual argument? (What about overpopulation? Does overpopulation even exist? “Other religions” - what about them? Would you like to talk about one in particular? Which one? etc…) [/quote]

I’m just telling you how morally bankrupt and inconsistent these ideas are.
For instance, it’s still official catholic wisdom that potential life is sacred and stillborn souls are unblessed and “don’t go to heaven”. The implications for banning abortion on moral grounds are enormous here. And they are all pretty ridiculous.
Can a child that will probably be stillborn, be aborted through a doctor? Is the small chance of being born healthy all it takes? If I know that my wife will probably conceive tonight, am I obliged to rape her if she refuses intimacy -After all, potential life is at stake!? etc etc…

Also, regarding overpopulation. That is a BIG issue where god’s bronze age writer staff lets us down completely. A person that is concentrating fully on “potential life” etc, refuses to see the giant dilemma for our species. Across the time and globe, cultures know techniques to cope with that.
The good book says nothing worth mentioning, quite the opposite (“be fertile…”). That’s also a complete copout regarding abortion.

[quote]katzenjammer wrote:
All I have to say is, you have a decidedly odd sense of intimacy; I should think murder, being a quintessential public act, is everyone’s business.
[/quote]
Murder Schmurder.
It’s obvious murder is not condemnded per se, nor was it ever in most cultures.
You alone mentioned Augustinus’ “just war” who was busy contextualizing killing for his emperors and his church.

148

Schwarzfahrer is correct and consistent on this point: if you believe there is never a justified abortion, then there cannot be a justified war. If a life is sacred it is always sacred. If you can justify a war or killing someone in general, then there is surely a justification for abortion somewhere.

149

[quote]Schwarzfahrer wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]Schwarzfahrer wrote:
No.
It’s about showing that most concepts about THE god are, from a moral point of view, vague at best, sometimes even repulsive.

The idea in this abortion thread is that moral arguments “from god” fail consistently because those gods, especially the catholic skytyrant, are far from consistent.
[/quote]

Ich sage dies, damit Sie es richtig zu verstehen. Du bist diejenige, die Gott in dieser Argumentation nicht mitgebracht. Blick zur�?�¼ck durch die letzten sechs Seiten und bis hierher gekommen, Gott sei nicht einmal erw�?�¤hnt.[/quote]

This is practically gibberish. You probably try to say here that Biblestudy Inc wasn’t part of the discussion.
And that would be as thruthful as creationists denying their religous motivation.
[/quote]

I said that you were the first to bring God into the discussion. That your attack on my unstated beliefs is prejudice and bigotry and you’re not addressing the argument.

150

[quote]kilpaba wrote:
Schwarzfahrer is correct and consistent on this point: if you believe there is never a justified abortion, then there cannot be a justified war. If a life is sacred it is always sacred. If you can justify a war or killing someone in general, then there is surely a justification for abortion somewhere.

[/quote]

Have you ever read the Just War doctrine?

151

No I have not so I cannot comment on it. I will say I am dubious that you can ever prove that a war is ‘just’ if you also hold at the same time you can never justify taking an innocent life. But if there is a powerful philosophical argument I haven’t heard on this score I am open to hearing it. Got some cliffnotes for me?

152

Okay so I just read a synopsis of the document and while a fine theory, I would contend there has by its own definitions never been a ‘just’ war in the history of the world. Collateral damage is just too great in most cases.

I am not advocating never going to war, I am simply backing up the assertion that if you believe there are good times to go to war despite the inevitable loss of innocent life then it would stand to reason you could construe a very similar argument for an abortion. More of an attack on the knee jerk rejection many hawkish conservatives have against abortion when they have zero qualms about laying waste to any number of innocent people so long as they accomplish their objectives.

153

[quote]kilpaba wrote:
No I have not so I cannot comment on it. I will say I am dubious that you can ever prove that a war is ‘just’ if you also hold at the same time you can never justify taking an innocent life. But if there is a powerful philosophical argument I haven’t heard on this score I am open to hearing it. Got some cliffnotes for me?[/quote]

The strict conditions for legitimate defense by military force require rigorous consideration. The gravity of such a decision makes it subject to rigorous conditions of moral legitimacy. At one and the same time:

  • the damage inflicted by the aggressor on the nation or community of nations must be lasting, grave, and certain;
  • all other means of putting an end to it must have been shown to be impractical or ineffective;
  • there must be serious prospects of success;
  • the use of arms must not produce evils and disorders graver than the evil to be eliminated. The power of modern means of destruction weighs very heavily in evaluating this condition.

This is the Just War Doctrine, however, further reading can be done here: http://www.catholic.com/library/Just_War_Doctrine_1.asp

154

[quote]kilpaba wrote:
Okay so I just read a synopsis of the document and while a fine theory, I would contend there has by its own definitions never been a ‘just’ war in the history of the world. Collateral damage is just too great in most cases.[/quote]

Exactly, I don’t use the Just War doctrine to defend the current conflicts/wars/&c. I use it against them as I don’t consider them just.

[quote]
I am not advocating never going to war, I am simply backing up the assertion that if you believe there are good times to go to war despite the inevitable loss of innocent life then it would stand to reason you could construe a very similar argument for an abortion.[/quote]

I can do neither, I cannot believe there is any good time to lose innocent lives.

I think you have mistaken me for a conservative (I am more conservative than a Republican and more liberal than a Democrat). I’m not, I do have a problem with the wars that the U.S. are involved in because of the innocents. I have many qualms with the laying waste of innocents to obtain objectives. The moral motto by which I stand is in fact “the ends never justify the means.”

155

Then good man Brother C, I am on board with you and none of my contentions are leveled at you. I am referring specifically to pro-war republicans types who ALSO believe abortion is always a terrible thing. This is hypocritical as Schwarzfahrer stated and since he was getting the ole’ gang tackle I figured I would lend a hand. If you believe war is basically always unjust because of loss of innocent life then you are consistent at least when you say that abortion is basically always unjust because of the loss of an innocent life. All I pretty much care about in these sorts of discussions is people being consistent in their principles!

156

[quote]kilpaba wrote:
Schwarzfahrer is correct and consistent on this point: if you believe there is never a justified abortion, then there cannot be a justified war. If a life is sacred it is always sacred. If you can justify a war or killing someone in general, then there is surely a justification for abortion somewhere.

[/quote]

Because fetuses are just as guilty of rape and murder as enemy soldiers?

157

[quote]Big Banana wrote:

[quote]kilpaba wrote:
Schwarzfahrer is correct and consistent on this point: if you believe there is never a justified abortion, then there cannot be a justified war. If a life is sacred it is always sacred. If you can justify a war or killing someone in general, then there is surely a justification for abortion somewhere.

[/quote]

Because fetuses are just as guilty of rape and murder as enemy soldiers?[/quote]

Because the children that are raped and murdered by the enemy soldiers are just as innocent as that fetus, yes. This is the ugly face of war that we conveniently gloss over in modern times. Innocent people WILL die when you go to war. The only question is how many.

158

[quote]kilpaba wrote:

[quote]Big Banana wrote:

[quote]kilpaba wrote:
Schwarzfahrer is correct and consistent on this point: if you believe there is never a justified abortion, then there cannot be a justified war. If a life is sacred it is always sacred. If you can justify a war or killing someone in general, then there is surely a justification for abortion somewhere.

[/quote]

Because fetuses are just as guilty of rape and murder as enemy soldiers?[/quote]

Because the children that are raped and murdered by the enemy soldiers are just as innocent as that fetus, yes. This is the ugly face of war that we conveniently gloss over in modern times. Innocent people WILL die when you go to war. The only question is how many. [/quote]

Huh?

Let me explain. Killing evil man sometimes acceptable. Killing innocent child in doctors office is not.

159

[quote]Big Banana wrote:

[quote]kilpaba wrote:

[quote]Big Banana wrote:

[quote]kilpaba wrote:
Schwarzfahrer is correct and consistent on this point: if you believe there is never a justified abortion, then there cannot be a justified war. If a life is sacred it is always sacred. If you can justify a war or killing someone in general, then there is surely a justification for abortion somewhere.

[/quote]

Because fetuses are just as guilty of rape and murder as enemy soldiers?[/quote]

Because the children that are raped and murdered by the enemy soldiers are just as innocent as that fetus, yes. This is the ugly face of war that we conveniently gloss over in modern times. Innocent people WILL die when you go to war. The only question is how many. [/quote]

Huh?

Let me explain. Killing evil man sometimes acceptable. Killing innocent child in doctors office is not.

[/quote]

If I get kilpaba right, and giving it my own spin: Killing ‘evil’ people normally automatically includes killing ‘innocents’ (the infamous ‘collateral damage’). Legalising and rationalising a killing (in war such as above, or as part of the judicial process, or via neglect within your social system) opens up the question where you draw the line of what’s acceptable in general and as your margin of error. If you accept some killings as acceptable, the general principle of preserving all life is broken - from that point onwards it’s just a question of how many ‘innocents’ (again essentially just a legal convention and depending on changing definitions) you kill, or let be killed (by mistake) imho. That’s what I tried to explain in my earlier post - all killings are questionable, yet we’re surprisingly creative when it comes to rationalising the ones we deem acceptable within the context we choose. Being specifically restrictive or permissive (e.g. by labelling someone as ‘evil’) on one account just means you draw a line following a certain convention.

Makkun

160

We’re all drawing lines. The worst thing you can do is pretend that your line is the “right” one.

What makes humans different than the rest of the animal kingdom or any other life?

Is it some level of consciousness or “soul”?

Do embryos have it? On what grounds do you make that assertion?